HKSAR v. TAHIR KALEEM

DCCC562/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 562 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you are convicted after trial of one offence of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, and one offence of blackmail, contrary to section 23 of the Theft Ordinance. The theft of course is contrary to section 9 of that ordinance.

2.  I dealt fully with the facts in my verdict. I do not feel the need to repeat them, they are well-known to the court.

3.  Put very simply, this matter involved you, either by yourself or with others, stealing the company vehicle of your employer which contained electronic goods worth approximately $300,000. The vehicle itself was recovered after being abandoned, and at a later stage, $100,000 worth of electronic goods was also recovered.

4.  The act of blackmail involved either you by yourself or with others demanding $25,000 for return of the goods, the threat being that these goods would either not be returned or they would be sold on to others.

5.  You admitted two previous convictions comprising four offences. Two of those offences involved dishonesty.

6.  I adjourned the case for the preparation of a probation officer’s background report, which is now before me and has been considered by me. I do acknowledge that generally it is a positive report.

7.  Mr Poots had little to say in mitigation. He told me that you are a family man with a young family, that you care for and look after that family. Also from your record it is apparent that you have never been to prison before. I am told the family are shocked by your involvement in these offences.

8.  Quite rightly, Mr Poots points out that $100,000 worth of the goods were recovered. I also note that the LGV was found abandoned, though we do not know the value of that vehicle.

9.  I turn now to the sentence.

10.  This is a fundamental breach of trust involving the theft of the van of your employer which contained $300,000 worth of electronic goods, $100,000 of which were recovered. Whilst one cannot be certain, but it is my opinion that you probably did not act alone in this matter. Whether or not you were the prime mover is not clear, however, we do know the part that you did play.

11.  It seems to me that I should view these two offences as going hand in hand and as part of a general scenario of breach of trust.

12.  The cynical theft of these goods followed by the demand of the money for their return is a slightly aggravating feature, in my opinion.

13.  I also note that you show no remorse for what you have done despite the evidence against you being totally overwhelming. I do note also that you are a family man with family responsibilities and that your incarceration will cause difficulties for that family. However, you have brought these troubles upon your family.

14.  You will be sent to prison but I will take the lowest starting point I can consistent with my public duty and I will adopt the usual tariff in Hong Kong for breach of trust.

15.  In all the circumstances, you will go to prison for 2 years on each offence to be served concurrently, that is a total of 2 years.

16.  Finally, I end by thanking counsel for their assistance in this case.