|
DCCC 35 /2013
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 35 OF 2013
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
Qasir Jahanger |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Before: |
HH Judge S D’Almada Remedios |
| Date: |
12 April 2013 at 9.58 am |
| Present: |
Mr Trevor Beel, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr Karbhari Jal Nadirshaw, of Jal N Karbhari & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant |
| Offence: |
Burglary (入屋犯法罪) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and subsection (4) of the Theft Ordinance.
2. You admitted that between 21 March 2012 and 2 April 2012, you entered as a trespasser a flat on the 8th Floor of Ming Hing Building at 174-176 Fuk Wing Street, Sham Shui Po in Kowloon and stole cash of about HK$34,000 and RMB8,600.
3. The occupant of the flat had found that he had lost his front door key on 21 March. Despite the loss of his key, he did not change the front door lock but continued to use a spare duplicate key. On 30 March, he and his parents prepared to leave Hong Kong when they discovered that some cash was missing from their flat. However, they made no report to the police at that time.
4. When they returned to Hong Kong on 2 April, the occupant conducted a thorough check of the premises and found the cash as listed in the charge was missing from a drawer in the TV cabinet. He also found signs that the contents inside the drawer had been disturbed and the key that he had lost earlier was discovered where the missing cash had been placed. There was no indication that the front door of the flat had been forced open. A report was made to the police and a palm print was lifted from inside the TV cabinet drawer. That palm print that was lifted was found to be your left palm print.
5. On 16 November, you were arrested. You remained silent under caution and it was found that you were living in the same building on the same floor of the premises at the time of the incident.
6. You are 29 years of age and sneaked into Hong Kong from China in 2005. You are now a torture claimant. You were born in Pakistan and are Pakistani by nationality. You have one criminal conviction in Hong Kong which is of criminal damage some three years ago in 2010.
7. Mr Karbhari has mitigated fully on your behalf and sets out that your strongest mitigating factor is of course your plea of guilty. The explanation he has offered for your commission of this crime is the fact that as you are a torture claimant, you are under great financial constraints. Although your rent is paid for at $1,000, you only have an extra $900 to live upon and therefore feel very rationed. As a torture claimant you are not permitted to work in Hong Kong and therefore you committed this offence.
8. Quite clearly the offence is one of a burglary of a domestic premises. There are very clear tariffs for burglary of domestic premises laid down by the Court of Appeal and that is one of an immediate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years had you been convicted after trial. There are no aggravating factors in this particular case and that is the appropriate start point to which I shall take.
9. In the circumstances, defendant, you have pleaded guilty, you deserve the full one third credit as a result you shall be sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.
|
(S. D’Almada Remedios)
District Judge
|
|