HKSAR v. GADARA JASPAL SINGH

DCCC 1096/2022

[2023] HKDC 1336

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1096 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty before me this morning to one count of burglary and was, on his own admission of the facts, convicted accordingly. The premises being burgled was a restaurant called the Moon Kee in Yuen Long, hereinafter referred to as “the Restaurant”.

The Facts

2.  Now, at around 5:40 am in the morning of 29 June 2022, PW2 on the list, a staff of the Restaurant, returned to the said Restaurant and found signs of the cashier counter area being ransacked.  It was subsequently found that HK$2,000 cash had been taken from an unlocked drawer in that area and the matter was then reported to the police. 

3.  After reviewing the CCTV footages for the area, both outside and inside the Restaurant, it was found by the police that at around 2:51 am on 29 June 2022, the defendant turned into an alley next to the main entrance of the Restaurant and got from there into the Restaurant through its rear entrance.  Having gone inside, the defendant then searched around the cashier counter area for six to seven minutes before taking the HK$2,000 from the drawer.  He left the Restaurant through the rear entrance at around 3:01 am in the morning. 

4.  At about 8:46 am on 6 July 2022, the defendant was intercepted by PW3, a patrolling officer at Sai Tai Street in Yuen Long.  Under caution, the defendant admitted to have committed the offence and told the police that he had spent all the money stolen from the Restaurant.  He said he committed the burglary as he was in need of money. 

Defendant’s Background

5.  The defendant is 38 years old.  He is married and has a daughter.  He was born in India and came and settled in Hong Kong when he was 6 to 7 years old.  He is married to a Filipino lady and they had a daughter who is now being taken care of by her maternal grandmother.

6.  The defendant has a total of 21 previous convictions, seven of which were for burglaries.  In fact, he was convicted of five burglaries on the same day in October 2020 and was sentenced to a total of 30 months’ imprisonment.  This morning, I was told that he finished serving that term and was discharged from prison on 15 November 2021, which was around six to seven months prior to the date of the current offence. 

7.  According to defence counsel, the defendant worked as a labourer, earning about HK$25,000 to HK$30,000 a month before the pandemic.  Work, however, came thin when he was released from custody and he has not been able to make a living out of it.  That, defence counsel said, was the main reason for him to have committed the present offence. 

8.  The defendant had suffered from depression after his first wife died and began to use drugs to numb himself.  He was referred by the Correctional Services Department to the substance abuse clinic of Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital in April 2021 and was diagnosed with primary insomnia with a history of polysubstance abuse.  The defendant had eventually got rid of his addiction problem after he started treatment in the hospital. 

Sentence

9.  In terms of sentencing guidelines, it is well settled that for a simple burglary of a non-domestic premises, the starting point is one of 2½ years’ imprisonment.  Taking everything in the current case into account, I see no reason why that should not be followed in the present case.  

10.  But that is not all.  There is of course also the question of the defendant’s recidivism.  As very fairly conceded by defence counsel, there is no question that the defendant is a recidivist.  The fact that he recommitted the present offence half a year after his release from prison stands as a testament to that.  And it also shows clearly that the sentences passed on him in 2020 had only served a very limited purpose in deterring him from recommitting. That, obviously, is an aggravating factor which I have a duty to deal with. 

11.  Hopefully without passing a sentence which would become a crushing blow to the defendant, who is still only in his 30s, I shall add another 6 months to the 30 months terms, making an elevated starting point of 36 months’ imprisonment. 

12.  For his guilty plea, the defendant will of course have his full one-third discount and as there is no other mitigating factor which I can find in the present case, that is the sentence which I will pass, and the defendant is accordingly sentenced to a term of 24 months’ imprisonment.