HKSAR v. SINGH GILL JATINDER

DCCC 93/2020

[2020] HKDC 673

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 93 OF 2020

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to eleven charges of burglary contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

Summary of Facts

2.  Between the period of 3 July and 26 July 2019, the defendant burgled eleven commercial premises and non-domestic premises located in different areas in Hong Kong Island and Kowloon. 

Charge 1

3.  On 3July 2019, the defendant entered as a trespasser “Nice Kids Education Centre”, ransacked the premises and stole one notebook computer. A window in the toilet was opened with the ventilation fan being removed. Some locked drawers were prized open. 

Charge 2

4.  On 4July 2019, the defendant entered as a trespasser “Jordan Hair Design Salon”, ransacked the premises and stole HK$3,000 cash after prized open the cashier drawer. A window was prized open.

Charge 3

5.  On 6July 2019, the defendant entered as a trespasser “Dominic Savio Kindergarten”, ransacked the premises and stole 5 notebook computers, one suitcase and smartphone. A window of a toilet was prized open. A silver wrench and a pair of scissors were left behind.

Charge 4

6.  On 12July 2019, the defendant entered as a trespasser “Japan Home Centre”, ransacked the premises and stole HK$870 cash after prized open the cashier machine. A window of a toilet was open without prized mark.

Charge 5

7.  On 13July 2019, the defendant entered as a trespasser “Jordan Hair Design Salon”, ransacked the premises and stole HK$2,000 cash from the cashier machine and one camera. The ventilation window was prized open.

Charge 6

8.  On 16July 2019, the defendant entered as a trespasser “St. James’ Settlement Causeway Bay Kindergarten Child Care Centre”, ransacked the premises and stole HK$11,890. The window and the locked cash drawer were prized open.

Charge 7

9.  On 19July 2019, the defendant entered as a trespasser “Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Li Chi Ho Primary School”, ransacked the premises and stole HK$4,800 cash, 4 cameras, one camera lens and one MacBook Pro. Many drawers of the teacher’s desk and the teachers’ room glass door were prized open.

Charge 8

10.  On 23July 2019, the defendant entered as a trespasser “Hong Kong Cuisine”, ransacked the premises and stole HK$20,000 cash from the prized opened locked drawer. A window in the kitchen was removed and the security alarm system was damaged.

Charge 9

11.  On 23 July 2019, the defendant entered as a trespasser “Budding Concept”, ransacked the premises and stole 6 puddings. A window was prized open.

Charge 10

12.  On 26July 2019, the defendant entered as a trespasser “The Ashley Road Trading Company”, ransacked the premises and stole HK$3,710 cash. The rear door and cashier machine were prized open.

Charge 11

13.  On 26 July 2019, the defendant entered as a trespasser “Ned Kelly’s Last Stand”, ransacked the premises and stole HK$3,000 cash from the prized open cashier machine. The rear door was open but without damage.

Personal background and criminal records

14.  The defendant is aged 41.  He is a permanent resident of Hong Kong. He received up to Form 3 education. He was a transportation worker between 2005 to May 2019, and unemployed since 2019.

15.  The defendant has 15 criminal records, with 47 previous convictions. 33 convictions are for burglary. In 21 June 2017, the defendant was convicted of 15 charges of burglary and sentenced to a total of 3 years and 8 months in District Court. According to the Antecedents Statement, the defendant was released on 14 January 2019 and committed the present offences within 6 months after release.

Mitigation

16.  The defendant committed these burglaries because he was a drug addict and needed the money to survive. The defendant was at that time addicted to crack cocaine. As a result of the burglaries the stolen property was sold to obtain cash for his drug addiction.

17.  The defendant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and is remorseful.  He fully cooperated with the police and admitted the offences in VRI.  Upon his release from prison, the defendant intends to immigrate to the UK and live with his sister in Glasgow.

Sentence

18.  The Court of Appeal had set down clear guidelines in sentencing cases of burglary. For burglary of commercial premises, the appropriate starting point should be 2.5 years’ imprisonment: R v Wong Man^[1].

19.  In HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai^[2], Yeung JA set out the following aggravating features:-

“The starting point can be adjusted upwards if there are aggravating circumstances such as (1) the offence is carefully planned and skillfully executed involving the use of heavy instruments or equipment; (2) the offence is committed by two or more people; (3) the offence targets at substantial premises and involves substantial properties; (4) the offender is a professional burglar and not just an opportunist; (5) the offender has previous convictions, particularly previous convictions of a similar nature, and (6) the offender commits multiple offences”

20.  I consider there are following aggravating features in the present case: -

i) The offence is carefully planned and skilfully executed. The defendant used equipment to prize open door, windows, locks or cashier in each offence.

ii) The defendant is a professional burglar and not just an opportunist, as multiple shops were targeted within one month.

iii) Defendant is a repeated offender. He has 3 previous burglary conviction records in the last 9 years.

iv) The defendant commits all these 11 offences within 1 month.

21.  Therefore, for each offence, I am of the view that the starting point of 2.5 years should be adjusted upwards to 5 years (60 months). The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges at the earliest opportunity, he is entitled to one-third discount. I impose a sentence of 40 months for each offence. I find no other mitigating factor for me to reduce the sentence.

22.  I take into account the offences were committed over a period of 23 days.  As number of offences were committed, all charges should not be run concurrently. Considering the totality principle, I will order that part of the sentences will be served consecutively and part concurrently.  For Charge 1 – 4, all 40 months to be run concurrently.  For Charge 5 – 8, all 40 months to be run concurrently, but 6 months consecutively to Charge 1 – 4. For Charge 9 – 11, all 40 months to be run concurrently, but 6 months consecutively to Charge 1 – 8. Therefore, the overall sentence will be 4 years 4 months (52 months).