|
DCCC4/2011, 254/2011 & 414/2011
(Consolidated)
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 4, 254 AND 414 OF 2011
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Hung Tak-hung (D1) |
|
| |
Jatinder Singh Gill (D2) |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Before: |
Deputy District Judge A. Yuen |
| Date: |
23 May 2011 at 11.00 am |
| Present: |
Miss Lisa Go, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Shaun Patrick Kelly, instructed by Ivan Tang & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st Defendant
Mr Richard David Donald, instructed by Messrs Hampton, Winter & Glynn, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd Defendant |
| Offence: |
(1) - (22) Burglary (入屋犯法罪) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The 1st defendant was convicted of one count of burglary; that is the 1st charge.
2. Facts revealed that on 1 July last year in the early morning he and the 2nd defendant went to Mu Kuang English School at Sau Mau Ping, where the 2nd defendant stole therein while the 1st defendant acted as a lookout. After the stealing, D1 drove D2 away in a taxi. A number of laptop computers, cameras and cash were stolen.
3. The premises in question is a non-domestic premises and the sentencing guideline is clear. The starting point should be one of 2½ years.
4. I fail to see any mitigating factors in D1’s case, therefore D1 is sentenced to 2½ years.
5. D2 pleaded guilty to 13 counts of burglary, two of which involved domestic premises while the rest involved non-domestic premises. The total value of property involved was around $750,000.
6. In sentencing the 2nd defendant, the court will take into consideration his plea of guilty, the information he provided to the police after his arrest, and the assistance he provided to the court.
7. In this case I am prepared to give him a 50 per cent discount. The court will also take into account the totality principle.
8. As mentioned before, the starting point for non-domestic premises burglary is 2½ years, and for domestic premises burglary, the starting point is one of 3 years, therefore for the 1st, 2nd, 7th, 10th, 11th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st and the 22nd charge, I will take 2½ years as the starting point for each of these charges. Because of the defendant’s plea and other mitigating factors, I reduce it to 15 months, these sentences to run concurrently to each other but will run consecutively to the total sentence of the 5th and the 9th charges.
9. For the 5th and 9th charges, I will take 3 years as a starting point for each of these two charges. Because of the defendant’s plea and other mitigating factors, I reduce it to 18 months.
10. The sentences of the 5th and the 9th charge will run concurrently to each other but consecutive to the total sentence of the rest of the charges, therefore making the total sentence of 33 months.
| |
A. Yuen |
| |
Deputy District Judge |
|