HKSAR v. MAHESH PRABHA DANGALLA DANGALLA APPUHAMILAGE (also known as DANGALLA APPUHAMILAGE MAHESH PRABHA, KALTOTA MUDALIGE NISHAN PRIYADARSHANA PERERA and MAHESH PRABHA PANGALLA DANGALLA APPUHAMILAGE) AND OTHERS

DCCC 1587/2024

[2025] HKDC 1594

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1587 OF 2024

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

---------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---------------------------------------

Charges

1.  There are three defendants.  All plead guilty to Charge 1, burglary.  D1 also pleads guilty to Charge 2, driving without a valid driving licence, and Charge 3, using a motor vehicle without third-party insurance. 

Facts

2.  Around 3.10 am on 13 July 2024, some plainclothes police officers in Sai Kung noticed D1 and D3 appearing suspiciously in a carpark.  The two entered the Pricerite Group Building at Hong Ting Road nearby through the building’s rear entrance.  One of them was carrying a nylon bag. 

3.  The building had not been in use for about 10 years.  Yet, its entrance was once secured by a chain and padlock and there was a security guard on duty between 6 am and 6 pm daily. 

4.  That early morning, police officers saw D1 and D3 came out of the building at about 6.10 am.  At that time, they were carrying 10 large bags with them.  The two put down the bags on the pavement and walked to the carpark. 

5.  About 10 minutes later, a white wagon driven by D1 emerged from the carpark.  The police officers saw the three defendants alight from the wagon. D1 and D3 loaded the bags from the pavement onto the vehicle.  D2 looked around. 

6.  The officers then approached the three defendants.  D3 fled but he was soon caught. 

7.  The police found inside the boot of the vehicle certain things, including: 

(a) One nylon bag containing one bundle of electrical cables;

(b) one empty nylon bag; and

(c) one bundle of electrical cables.

8.  On the pavement, there were the following items, including: 

(a) One bundle of electrical cables;

(b) three electrical cables;

(c) one nylon bag containing one bundle of electrical cables;

(d) five nylon bags containing a total of four bundles of electrical cables, seven electrical wires and three bundles of electrical wires;

(e) one nylon bag containing one bundle of electrical wires and one bundle of electrical cables; and

(f) one nylon bag containing the following:

(i) one white vest;

(ii) one black USB desk lamp;

(iii) two pliers;

(iv) one tripod;

(v) one black cable cutter;

(vi) one umbrella;

(vii) one crowbar;

(viii) two cutters;

(ix) one voltage tester;

(x) one green glove;

(xi) a pair of black gloves; and

(xii) six black masks.

9.  Altogether, there were the following stolen properties: nine bundles of electrical cables; three electrical cables; four bundles of electrical wires; and seven electrical wires. 

10.  The three defendants were arrested for burglary.  D1 was also arrested for driving without licence and using vehicle without third-party insurance. 

11.  The police found a set of damaged chain and padlock by the rear entrance of the building.  The security guard of the building confirmed that the chain and padlock was once intact but he could not tell when such things were damaged.  He also confirmed that some electrical wires had been cut and removed from the cable containment and power distribution boxes on the first two floors of the building.  But again, he could not tell when the cutting was done. 

12.  The stolen cables and wires in this case were estimated to be worth $20,000. 

13.  D1 told the police that a friend asked him to go to the building to collect some wires and cables for reward.  He did not know who owned those things.  He said when he and D3 entered the building, those stolen properties had already been packed and laid there for them to pick up.  So they took the bags to bundle up the stolen properties and later took them out of the building to load onto the wagon.  Then they were caught by the police.  D1 admitted that he intended to sell the stolen properties. 

14.  D1 also admitted he was the driver of the wagon but he did not have any driving licence in Hong Kong. 

15.  D2 told the police that D1 was her boyfriend and she boarded the wagon on the night of 12 July 2024. 

16.  D3 admitted that he went with D1 to the scene to collect some cables and wires.  He did not know who owned the properties and he intended to sell them.

17.  D1 and D3 were Form 8 recognizance holders. 

Record

18.  D1 is now aged 53.  Between 1999 and 2016, he had five previous records involving a number of offences.  The 2013 record was of theft. 

19.  D2 is aged 44.  She has a Hong Kong ID card.  She has no previous conviction. 

20.  D3 is aged 40.  Between August 2005 and February 2025, he had five previous records involving a number of offences.  Four of the convictions were before the present offence, including one of burglary in 2018.  The fifth conviction was a recent one but it was for an offence occurring in December 2021.  In February 2025, D1 was sent to prison for a total of 9 months for going equipped for stealing and theft. 

Mitigation

D1

21.  Counsel says D1 came from Sri Lanka in 2003 to seek refuge here with his wife.  While his wife could work as a domestic helper, he remained unemployed. The couple have a son who is 18 now, but unfortunately, that young man has some kind of cancer and requires treatment.  Counsel says D1 is under financial pressure due to his son’s condition and he also has to send money back to Sri Lanka to support his parents. 

22.  Counsel says D1 has previous records but they were quite stale. 

23.  Counsel says the present offence was an unsophisticated one.  Nobody was alarmed and the stolen properties were not of huge value. 

24.  Counsel says D1 is now remorseful.  Counsel asks the court to impose a lenient prison sentence on D1 in relation to Charge 1 and to fine him on Charges 2 and 3.  Counsel says if the court has to impose any prison term on Charges 2 and 3 as well, those terms should run concurrently with Charge 1. 

25.  Counsel suggests a starting point of 24 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1 and if there should be any Form 8 enhancement, such enhancement should not be more than 3 months. 

D2

26.  Counsel says D2 has been married.  She has one daughter aged 19 residing in Japan, and another daughter aged 15 living in Sri Lanka.  D2 has been working in Hong Kong as a domestic helper since 2019. 

27.  Counsel emphasises that D2 has a clear record.  He says D2 was D1’s girlfriend.  D2 only boarded D1’s wagon on the night before and remained sleeping in the vehicle for most of the time. 

28.  Counsel says D2 did not take part in any event that occurred inside the building.  She only acted as a lookout when D1 and D3 came out of the building with the stolen properties and loaded them onto the vehicle.  Counsel says D2 does not have any role in the planning and she had no financial gain either. Counsel asks the court to adopt a starting point of no more than 22 months for Charge 1. 

D3

29.  Counsel says D3 came from Sri Lanka in 2009 to seek refuge here.  Though his torture claim has been rejected by the Immigration Department, he is seeking judicial review. 

30.  Counsel says D3 has a girlfriend, who is a Hong Kong resident.  The couple have a 9-year-old child and the mother is the breadwinner. 

31.  Counsel says a friend asked D3 to go to the scene to collect the wires and cables for reward. 

32.  Counsel says the stolen properties have been recovered and they were not of high value.  He also points to the fact that the building in question was a site not in use for quite some time. 

33.  Counsel says D3 was frank to the police and he pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity.  He asks the court to be as lenient towards D3 as possible. As to the proper starting points and enhancement, counsel made the same suggestion as counsel for D1 (see paragraphs 24 and 25). 

Sentence

34.  The three defendants all plead guilty to Charge 1.  D1 also pleads guilty to Charge 2 and Charge 3. 

Charge 1

35.  The building in question was not in use but it was not an abandoned site.  Even though it was not tightly secured, one can easily realise that it was not a place for permitted access.  Thus, even though D1 and D3 say they went there to collect cables and wires already cut from the installation, they still had committed burglary. 

36.  D2 only acted as a lookout.  However, she was in joint enterprise with the other two defendants. 

37.  The burglary was a premeditated one as D1 had prepared a wagon for conveyance, and the three also had a bag of tools with them. 

38.  The wires and cables in question were not of huge value. But still no one was entitled to take them away, even if they had already been cut from their installation. 

39.  D1 and D3 are Form 8 recognizance holders.  That justifies an enhancement of sentence.  The burglary offence in this case was not of the most serious type but still is a serious criminal conduct.  So any Form 8 enhancement should not be less than 6 months (HKSAR v Gulzar [2020] 3 HKLRD 805; see paragraphs 32 and 39 of the case in particular). 

40.  Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, including the three defendants acting in joint enterprise, and the fact that the building in question was not a site in use, and there was no evidence to prove that any of the defendants was responsible for the damaging of the chain and padlock and the cutting of the wires and cables, and the different roles between D2 and the other two defendants, I would adopt 24 months’ imprisonment as the starting point for D1 and D3 in Charge 1.  The Form 8 enhancement in their case should be one of 6 months. 

41.  D2 played a lesser role.  The starting point for her in Charge 1 should be 21 months’ imprisonment.  She has a Hong Kong ID card, residing here, so Form 8 enhancement does not apply in her case.  The three defendants plead guilty in time.  They can have the usual one-third discount.  Thus, on Charge 1, D1 and D3 are each sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment, while D2 gets 14 months.

Charge 2 and Charge 3

42.  D1 drove the wagon to the scene to commit burglary.  He did not have a driving licence and thus had no insurance to cover his driving.  He has no previous traffic record but driving in such circumstances to commit a crime justifies imprisonment.  He would receive 1 month’s imprisonment and 4 months’ imprisonment for Charge 2 and Charge 3 respectively.  That was already after the one-third discount for his plea.  These two terms can run concurrently but have to be consecutive to the 20 months’ imprisonment he gets for Charge 1. 

43.  In total, D1 is sent to prison for 24 months for his plea to Charges 1 to 3. 

44.  On Charge 3, D1 is also disqualified from driving all vehicles for a period of 2 years.  Such disqualification starts from today. 

45.  D3 was recently given 9 months’ imprisonment in Tuen Mun Magistracy for going equipped for stealing and theft (case number: TMCC 2397/2024).  That was a separate case.  I will order the 20 months’ imprisonment he gets in Charge 1 in the present case to run consecutively to his sentence in that Tuen Mun case.