HKSAR v. SINGH LAIK

DCCC 98/2018

[2018] HKDC 785

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASES NO 98 OF 2018

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

Background

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to 4 charges, being ‘burglary’ of non-domestic premises for charges 1 to 3, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and ‘attempted burglary’ for charge 4, contrary to section 11(1)(a) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.

Material admitted facts

2.  The offences were committed on four different occasions at 3 different non-domestic premises in Wan Chai.  Regarding charge 1, the loss caused to the victim amounted to HK$57,780.60, including items such as cameras and computers.  Regarding charge 2, the defendant committed the offence at early hours around 0452 hours.  The loss caused was HK$5,350.00.  Regarding charge 3, the defendant committed the offence at about 7:30 am.  The loss caused to the victim was HK$1,500.00.  In addition, the iron gate was damaged and the repair cost was HK$8,000.00.  In respect of charge 4, the defendant committed the offence at about 0433 hours.  The back iron door was damaged and the repair cost was about HK$20,000.00.  Under caution, the defendant admitted the offences. 

The defendant’s criminal records and mitigation

3.  The defendant has 18 previous convictions, three are similar to burglary (which was recorded in 2012 and 2014).   Further, he has three dishonest related convictions.

4.  In mitigation, I was told that the defendant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.  He is aged 40 and was living with mother. He was cooperative during police’s investigation.  The premises are of non-domestic in nature. Under caution, at the material times, he alleged that he had no place to live and needed money for food.  Counsel for the defendant urged me to consider the principle of totality.  His mother is aged 76, needed his care despite he has other siblings working in Hong Kong.

Sentencing consideration and discussion

5.  The conventional starting point for burglary of non-domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age in the absence of aggravating or mitigating factors is 2½ years’ imprisonment (see Attorney General v Lui Kam Chi [1993] 1 HKC 215, and HKSAR v Sim Ka Wing, CACC 450/2000).

6.  In terms of sentence, there should be no difference for an attempted burglary (see HKSAR v Mohammad Farooq, CACC 406/2013).

7.  The aggravating features in this case include the fact that defendant is a repeated offender.  He has three similar convictions in 2012 and 2014. Secondly, the value of the stolen property was substantial and they were not recovered.  He committed series of burglary within one month.  There were damages to iron gate or property that incurred substantial repair costs.  Some offences were committed in odd hours.  The cumulative effect of those aggravating features warrant substantial enhancement of sentence.   While I accept that the defendant was cooperative during police’s investigation, it seems to me there are strong circumstantial evidence in this case.   Having considered Mr Percy’s submissions, which are articulate as usual, my view is that 3 months’ enhanced sentence should be given for each of the offence because of the aggravating features of the offences.  1/3 discount be given for his guilty plea and that arrived at 22 months for each of the offence.  Having further considered the principle of totality in that a further meaningful discount be given to a defendant with multiple offences, I order the sentences for charge 1 and charge 2 be made concurrent while charge 3 and charge 4 be made concurrent, but the sentences of charge 1 and charge 2 be made consecutive with charge 3 and charge 4.  The total sentence the defendant has to serve is 44 months’ imprisonment.