HKSAR v. KANWAR CHANDRA

DCCC1122/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1122 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of burglary and was convicted accordingly. The prosecution case is that the shop in question, Gome Electrical Appliances, was situated at Thai Kong Building, Hennessy Road.

2.  On the morning of 21 August 2011, the staff of the shop discovered that the shop was burgled and the following property with the total value of about $173,000 was found missing:-

		Exhibit
(a)	12 computers worth about $56,000	E1
(b)	35 digital cameras worth about $112,000	E2
(c)	1 LCD monitor worth about $2,100	E3
(d)	3 pairs of headphones worth about $720	E4
(e)	32 electronic device dummies worth about $1,600	E5
(f)	2 computer cords	E6

3.  From the CCTV footage, the security guard of the building identified the burglar as one of the residents living in Room B of Flat A on 4 Floor of the building.

4.  On the same day, the police intercepted the defendant when the latter was leaving the said Flat A.  A room search resulted in the recovery of the following items:

Six of the 12 stolen computers (E1), 29 of the 35 stolen cameras (E2) and the above-said Exhibits E3 to E5. A 29-cm long hammer, one plastic basin and one cigarette packet were also found. The police also found a blanket (E7) on the rear staircase of the building. It transpired that the packet of cigarette matched with one cigarette discovered in the burgled premises. When arrested, the defendant said words to the effect that “None of my family’s business, only me. I used the hammer to break into Gome in and out three times.”

5.  On 22 August 2011, with the assistance of an interpreter, the defendant admitted the offence in a record of interview.  In the video recorded interview, the defendant further confessed that he used a hammer to break the glass of the rear door of the stop.  As the security alarm activated, the defendant felt scared and returned to his home upstairs.   

6.  At about 5 am, the defendant entered into the shop and stolen a number of computers and cameras.  At about 5.30 am, the defendant covered himself with a blanket (Exhibit 7) to avoid being identified.  The defendant also attempted to use water to erase fingerprints evidence.  He stole some more computers and cameras.  He admitted that he had stolen the electronic device dummies from the shop.

7.  The police were able to recover the stolen property except six computers, six cameras and two computer cords with the total value of about $58,000.

Mitigation

8.  The defendant is aged 27 years old and single. He was born in Nepal and finished his secondary education there.  He came to Hong Kong in 2008 for family reunion as his parents are Hong Kong residents. The defendant had a clear record in Hong Kong.  It was submitted that this was an opportunistic crime and motivated by greed.  The defendant, being a non professional criminal, committed the crime alone.  Most of the stolen property was recovered.  The defendant was a drug addict and submitted a mitigation letter expressing his regret and making a promise that he would not commit any wrongdoings which would give trouble to himself and his family.  It was submitted that the defendant is likely to de deported after serving his sentence in Hong Kong.

Sentence

9.  The defendant made use of the convenience in committing the burglary when he broke the glass of the rear door of the shop which was situated just 2 floors down in the same building.  Legally speaking the defendant had committed three crimes.

1. firstly, when the defendant attempted to burgle but for the security alarm being triggered;

2. the second time, when he actually stole the bulk of the stolen property and;

3. the third time, when he attempted to erase any fingerprint evidence and re-entered the shop to steal some more computers and cameras.

That said, I consider that the defendant was committing a series of transactions of the same character and I will sentencing him on one count of burglary to which he pleaded guilty.

10.  It was submitted that the defendant was a drug dependent for a few years and in his mitigation he claimed that he was affected by drugs at the material time.   That said, I consider that the defendant in fact was premeditated to commit the burglary when he went to the rear door of the shop with a hammer.  He was deterred when the security alarm was activated.  He even went to the management office to check if anyone was alerted. 

11.  At 5 am on the same day, the defendant went to the rear entrance of the shop the second time to make the entry.  After half an hour, the defendant even thought about the CCTV and used a blanket to cover himself.  He also used water with an attempt to erase any contact evidence. Again out of greed, the defendant committed the second burglary on the same premises.     

12.  In normal circumstances, the starting point for burglary of non domestic premises is 2½ years.  I cannot see any substantial mitigating factor for the defendant, except for his wise move to plead guilty to the charge to which the defendant is entitled to have one-third discount in sentence.

13.  Accordingly, I sentence the defendant to 20 months with a starting point of 2½ years.  The defendant is young and I would urge the defendant to keep his promise in that he would not recommit any offence again and would get rid of his drug habit as soon as possible.