|
DCCC 288 & 298/2015
(consolidated)
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 288 & 298 OF 2015
____________
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
LIMBU
KHAGENDRA (ALSO KNOWN AS LIMBU KMAGENDRA AND LIMBA KHAGENDRU) |
(D1) |
| |
KHAN HAIDER ALI
(ALSO KNOWN AS SAMMY) |
(D2) |
| |
ZAB SHAH |
(D3) |
| ____________ |
| Present: |
Mr Paddy Law, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Miss Diane Crebbin instructed by Tanner De Witt,assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D1.
Mr Leslie Parry instructed by Massie & Clement,assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D2.
Mr Geoffrey Booth of Haldanes,assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D3.
|
| Offences: |
(1) Burglary (入屋犯法罪) |
| |
(2) &(3) Failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause (無合理因由而沒有按照法庭的指定歸押) |
________________________
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
________________________
1. The defendants have pleaded guilty to one joint charge of burglary of a pharmacy, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance.[1] D1 and D2 have also pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause, contrary to section 9L of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.[2]
2. In summary in the early hours of 30 January this year the defendants burgled a pharmacy in Tsim Sha Tsui. A window to the storage room was broken and a cash register containing $2,500 cash and a display monitor were stolen in the burglary.
3. The defendants were arrested and released on court bail. D1 and D2 failed to attend the next court hearing on 2 April and were re-arrested on 16 and 21 April respectively.
4. In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendants by Miss Crebbin, Mr Parry and Mr Booth together with the letters of mitigation written by D1 and D2. Although the defendants have criminal records and in the case of D1 and D2 long criminal records, I take into account that none of the defendants have previous convictions for burglary.
5. The correct starting point for a single burglary of non-domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.
6. In my view the commission of the offence by three burglars is an aggravating feature justifying an increase in the starting point.[3] I am satisfied that the starting point of 2 years and 6 months should be increased by 3 months to 2 years and 9 months imprisonment. Giving you full credit for your pleas of guilty you are each convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 10 months imprisonment.
Failing to surrender
7. In mitigation Miss Crebbin tells me D1 is a street sleeper and simply forgot to attend court. D1 was arrested two weeks later whilst sleeping on the street. Mr Parry tells me that D2 was drunk and also forgot to attend court. Having realised he failed to attend court D2 was too frightened to go to the police. D2 was arrested just over two weeks later. Apparently both D1 and D2 did not pay their bail money and therefore there has been no estreatment of bail.
8. I am satisfied a 3 months starting point is appropriate for both D1 and D2. Giving you full credit for your pleas of guilty you are both convicted and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment.
9. I am satisfied that a wholly consecutive sentence is appropriate. D1 and D2 are sentenced to a total of 2 years imprisonment, which I am satisfied properly reflects their criminal culpability on the two charges they each face.
| |
(D. J. DUFTON) |
| |
District Judge |
[1] Cap 210.
[2] Cap 221.
[3] See HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai CACC 338/2007.
|