HKSAR v. SINGH LAIK

DCCC 611/2024

[2025] HKDC 79

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 611 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to a single count of attempted burglary. On 22^nd November 2023, a security personnel of the relevant building on Kimberly Road, Tsim Sha Tsui (hereinafter referred to as “the Building”)  spotted the Defendant at the backdoor of the relevant restaurant (hereinafter referred to as “the Restaurant”)  on the 1^st Floor of the Building through the live CCTV.

2.  As captured by the CCTV, the Defendant had entered the Building through an unlocked rear entrance while holding a black plastic bag, and took a cargo lift which led to the backdoor of the Restaurant.  He retrieved a crowbar from the plastic bag and tried to pry open the wooden backdoor of the Restaurant with it.  His attempt failed, and he then hid the crowbar under the Styrofoam boxes nearby.  He tried to leave by using the cargo lift, but service had been suspended by the security.  He then escaped through the Building’s staircase.  The case was reported.  The crowbar was seized by the police upon arrival.

3.  On 30^th November 2023, the Defendant was arrested at his residence.  Under caution at arrest and at the subsequent video recorded interview, he admitted having entered the rear entrance of the Building and picked up a crowbar at the back alley of the Building upon seeing the open rear entrance.  He intended to enter the Restaurant to steal money, and had tried to pry open the backdoor of the Restaurant with the crowbar but was unsuccessful. He left the crowbar at the scene.

The Defendant’s Mitigation and Antecedent Statement

4.  The Defendant is 47 years old and single.  He had been educated to Form 4 in Hong Kong.  He lived with his 70 years old mother and elder brother before remand.  He has 17 criminal convictions, involving 28 charges.  4 charges were of theft, 1 charge of taking conveyance without authority, and 9 charges of burglary or attempted burglary.  He was sentenced to a total of 21 months’ imprisonment for 1 charge of burglary and 3 charges of theft in the Kowloon City Magistracy on 23^rd December 2022, and released on 4^th November 2023. 

5.  The Defence submits that the Defendant was unemployed and had ran out of money at the time of the offence, and that he was not a professional burglar. In the middle of the offence, he realized that he should not have continued with it, and tried to leave.  The offence was not well planned, and the Defendant acted in response to an opportunity which arose at the time.  There was no loss involved.  He intends to stay in India with his uncle after release.  The Defendant also wishes the Court to consider his guilty plea and remorse. 

Sentencing Considerations

6.  The Court has considered the authority submitted by the Defence, as well as HKSAR v Sim Ka Wing CACC 450/2000, which sets out the sentencing guideline of 30 months’ imprisonment as the starting point of burglary of non-domestic premises.  Such a starting point has taken into account a certain degree of planning and premeditation.

7.  The Court considers that although it appears that there had not been a high degree of planning and premediation as the Defendant claimed that he had picked up the crowbar from the rear alley upon seeing the opened Building entrance.  But the fact remains that when he saw the opportunity for entering the Building, he decided to equip himself with a tool for attempting to burgle.  There is a sufficient degree of planning and premediation to come under the sentencing guideline. 

8.  I have also considered the authority of HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai CACC 338/2007, which states the aggravating factors for burglary.  In the present case, the large number of dishonesty related and burglary or attempted burglary convictions of the Defendant applies as an aggravating feature.  A further aggravation exists due to the Defendant’s commission of the present offence just 18 days after his release from prison for the same charge amongst others.  The previous imprisonment term was obviously not sufficient to deter the Defendant from committing the same acts.  A relatively substantial enhancement is called for.  I shall adjust the starting point of 30 months’ upwards by 9 months.

9.  I have considered the Defendant’s guilty plea and criminal record, the facts of the case, as well as all mitigation advanced on his behalf.  I shall adopt a starting point of 39 months’ imprisonment.  The sentence is reduced by 1/3 due to the guilty plea.  The Defendant is sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment.