HKSAR v. RASHID KHAN MUHAMMAD

DCCC812/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 812 OF 2008

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant has been convicted on his plea of one charge of burglary.

2.  In the early morning in question on 23 July this year, two police officers on patrol spotted the defendant climbing up some scaffolding into the company premises in question in Hunghom.  They waited outside, and just a few minutes later, they saw the defendant emerge from a back door of the premises holding a 9-foot length of copper water pipe in his hand.  He was intercepted and, under caution, he admitted that he had gone inside in order to dismantle some pipes to sell them.  He said, “I steal things because I do not have money.  Please give me a chance.”

3.  It is of some importance to note that these premises were under renovation or reconstruction at the time, as is very clear from the photographs which have been produced.  The premises do look something like, a “building site”, as Mr Wong described them.  They were unoccupied, and there was nobody inside at the time the defendant entered.

4.  I accept that he acted alone, and that it was not a premeditated offence, rather an opportunistic one.  He saw the premises as he walked by, saw his chance and broke in then and there.  He did not use any tools.  He was not even wearing gloves.  He simply pulled at the length of copper piping until it broke.

5.  I doubt that the length of piping that he stole is worth as little as $20, which the defendant has submitted through his counsel, but I do accept that it is worth a small amount of money, perhaps a couple of hundred dollars.

6.  These circumstances are all obviously mitigating.  I have had regard to the Court of Appeal’s decision in HKSAR and Cheung To Ming [2006] 2 HKLRD 259, in which the Court of Appeal accepted that, in similar circumstances, it is appropriate to adopt a lower starting point than the normal 2½ years which is adopted for burglary of commercial premises.

7.  The defendant is 27 years old and he has one previous conviction dating from 2 May this year, also for theft, for which he was fined $3,000.  He is married with one year-old twin sons. 

8.  In all the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment after trial and, in return for the defendant’s plea of guilty, I afford him the normal one-third discount, which reduces the starting point to 12 months’ imprisonment.

9.  In all the circumstances - I have in mind in particular his family circumstances -  I consider it appropriate to reduce that by a further two months; I impose a sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment upon him.

10.  It is very important the defendant has learnt his lesson that it is a criminal offence to break into even apparently abandoned premises of the sort that he broke into on this occasion, and steal even this copper pipe that he tore off the wall.  If he comes before the courts again for any similar type of offence, he cannot expect to receive a similarly lenient sentence.

DEFENDANT:  Yes.