|
DCCC958/2010
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 958 OF 2010
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Gurung Bisnu Parsad |
|
----------------------
|
Before:
|
Deputy District Judge Johnny Chan
|
|
Date:
|
6 October 2010 at 10.15 am
|
|
Present:
|
Mr Wong Chun-yin, Nicholas, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Philip William Swainston, of Messrs Littlewoods, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant
|
|
Offence:
|
Burglary (入屋犯法罪)
|
-----------------------------
Reasons for Sentence
-----------------------------
1. The defendant, Gurung Bisnu Parsad, pleads guilty before me to one charge of burglary.
2. On the 20th day of July this year, the defendant entered as a trespasser the part of a building known as Flat F, 1st Floor, Lee Kwan Building, Nos. 20-24 Yuen Long On Ning Road, Yuen Long, New Territories and attempted to steal therein.
3. The facts reveal that Mr Wan Kin-man is one of the shareholders of his family company, which owns the premises in question. As a restaurant of Mr Wan’s family business was terminated, the premises were used to store some restaurant tools. Mr Wan would go to the premises and conduct regular checks on the tools.
4. In mid-May 2010, Mr Wan had visited the premises in question and he had closed all the windows and doors of the premises. On the day in question, i.e., 20 July this year, at 11.45 am, Mr Wan went to the premises to conduct a regular check again with his elder brother. Upon entering the premises, Mr Wan found the defendant standing inside the premises. The defendant was obviously a stranger to Mr Wan. Mr Wan reported the case to the police.
5. PC54977 arrived at the premises. He declared his police identity and inquired with the defendant. The defendant told PC54977 that he could understand Punti. The defendant stated that he climbed into the premises and would like to steal something to exchange for money. The defendant said he was lack of money.
6. PC54977 arrested the defendant. He administered a caution on the defendant. The defendant pointed to a stainless steel container on the floor and stated that he would like to sell it for money as he was lack of money. Mr Wan confirmed that the stainless steel cabinet was in fact a heater and it was stored in the premises.
7. DPC34658 conducted a video recorded interview with the defendant on the same day with the presence of an interpreter. The defendant stated the following under reminded caution:
1) He climbed into the premises through an unlocked window;
2) After entering the premises, he put the heater into a nylon bag and intended to sell it for money;
3) At that juncture, Mr Wan opened the door of the premises and saw and defendant therein.
8. The defendant has appeared before the court on eight different occasions. He has a total of nine previous convictions recorded against him, all related to dishonesty.
9. Mr Swainston, who appears for the defendant, tells me in mitigation that the defendant is now 35 years of age. The defendant was born in Hong Kong. The defendant’s father had served with the British Army. The defendant returned to his home country, Nepal, when he was 7 or 8 years old and returned to Hong Kong in 1996. Since then the defendant has been residing in Hong Kong. The defendant attained Secondary 3 education. All his family members have now returned to Nepal.
10. Prior to the commission of the present offence the defendant was unemployed and was in receipt of public assistance. Previously, the defendant worked as a construction site worker, earning around $3,500 per month. Before the incident in question, the defendant had been homeless for about one month and he had to rely on his friends for a living.
11. On the day in question, the defendant noticed that the window of the premises was slightly open. The premises in question are situated on the 1st floor of the building. The defendant climbed up, opened the window and gained access into the premises.
12. Counsel urges me to accept the present case as one of burglary of non-domestic premises. After the defendant was confronted, he co-operated with the owner and he did not attempt to flee the premises. No damage was caused to the premises and no item was taken away. The burglary in question was not a sophisticated burglary. Counsel accepts the criminal record of the defendant is poor but the present case was the first burglary committed by the defendant. The defendant remained at the scene until the police arrived and he made a full admission to the police and co-operated with the police.
13. The defendant is remorseful for what he had done and counsel asked me to give full credit to the defendant for his guilty plea.
14. In sentencing the defendant, I have borne in mind the nature of the burglary; i.e., it was a burglary of non-domestic premises. I have borne in mind the facts of the case as admitted by the defendant. In my judgment, this case merits a starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment. The defendant is entitled to one-third reduction for his guilty plea. Apart from the guilty plea, I can see no other mitigating factor which can enable me to further reduce the sentence.
15. For the reasons given, I sentence the defendant to 20 months’ imprisonment.
|
(Johnny Chan) |
|
Deputy District Judge |
|