HKSAR v. SINGH SATINDER PAL

DCCC1139/ 2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.1139 OF 2009

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant faces 3 charges of burglary, contrary to s.11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. He pleaded guilty and admitted to the summary of facts and was duly convicted of all 3 charges.

Facts

Charge 1

2.  Pw1 was the tenant and occupier of Flat A, 3/F, 874 Canton Road, Yaumatei, Kowloon. On 13.12.2008 at about 8:37am, she left Flat A for work. She had secured the wooden door leading to Flat A and closed the metal gate in front of the wooden door when she left. At about 8:30pm on the same day, pw1 returned to Flat A. She pulled open the iron gate and then used her key to open the wooden door but was unable to do so. She eventually had to force open the wooden door for entry. Once inside, pw1 found that her wardrobe had been ransacked and properties including HK$500 cash, RMB500 cash, a pendant worth $400, 2 platinum necklaces worth a total of $2,000, one NDS game player worth $1,400, an ATM card and 2 bank passbooks. Pw1 estimated the cost of the repair of the lock of the wooden door was about $200.

3.  Police was notified and fingerprints were lifted from Flat A. The fingerprints matched those of the defendant.

Charge 2

4.  Pw2 was the resident in Flat A1, 7/F, 206 Ma Tau Wai Road, Hung Hom, Kowloon. There was a metal gate and a wooden door leading to Flat A1, but their locks were already broken and pw2 used a bicycle chain to secure the door instead.

5.  On 22.12.2008, at about 12pm, pw2 left Flat A1 for work. He returned later on at 8:20pm when he found that the metal gate and wooden door were opened and the bicycle chain was missing. He suddenly saw a male dashing out from the flat holding a torch light. That person was later identified to be the defendant.

6.  Pw2 was scared and did not give chase. Upon checking, he found that case of about HK$20 which was inside a drawer of a cabinet was missing. He then made a report to the police, who later arrived and lifted 3 fingerprints from the flat. Again, the prints matched those of the defendant.

Charge 3

7.  Pw3 lived in Flat C, 4/F, 32-34 Jordan Road, Yaumatei, Kowloon. On 7.1.09 at about 6:30pm, pw3 left Flat C together with his wife. All windows and doors had been secured when they left. They returned the same day at about 09:30am, to find that the curtain in the living room had fallen onto the floor and the grille of the windows in the living room had been prized off. Pw3 checked inside the bedroom and found signs of ransacking inside the wardrobe and the cabinet. He found properties including a wallet, his Hong Kong identity card, Home Visit Permit, Senior Citizen Card, Octopus card, cash of HK$3,000 and a necklace worth $1,500 were missing.

8.  A report was made to the police who attended the flat to investigate. Fingerprint lifted from the cabinet inside the bedroom and the window pane in the living room matched those of the defendant.

9.  A cautioned interview was conducted with the defendant and he admitted through the Punjabi interpreter that he committed the charge 1 offence alone, he did not remember how he had used the stolen properties and he had discarded the bank passbooks and the ATM card but couldn’t remember where he had discarded them.

10.  In a second cautioned interview, the defendant admitted that he committed the charge 2 offence alone and that he had already spent the stolen money.

11.  In a third cautioned interview, the defendant admitted that he committed the charge 3 offence alone and that he had already spent the stolen money.

Previous convictions

12.  The defendant has 8 previous convictions, 2 related to offences under the Theft Ordinance, and he had just finished serving a sentence of 14 months for a conviction dated 24.3.2009 for the offences of going equipped for stealing, possession of offensive weapon in a public place, assaulting a police officer under the Offences Against the Persons Ordinance and possession of dangerous drugs.

Mitigation

13.  The defendant is married but separated and has 2 children, a boy and a girl. He does have a fixed abode in Hong Kong. The defendant has written a letter in mitigation, where he expresses his deep remorse for his misdeeds. He blames it, probably correctly, on the influence of his drug addiction. The defendant also said that the reason why he was separated was also because of his drug addiction, an addiction that he has been struggling with on and off for years. The defendant’s father is 76, mother is 60, he has a sister and 2 brothers. One of his brothers works as a CSD officer. When the defendant could work, he was earning about $15,000 per month, he used to contribute money towards his children and family.

14.  Regarding the offences, it is put forward in mitigation that no one appeared to be present in any of the premises at the time of the commission of the offences. In charge 2, the person was entering while the defendant was leaving. Value of the stolen goods involved are not on the high side. There are of course identity cards and passbook involved. It is accepted that the burglaries are of domestic premises.

15.  Counsel for the defendant further submits that the defendant made frank admission, assisted the police in all charges and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. The defendant regrets very much what he had done and is genuinely remorseful. In the circumstances, the defendant asks for leniency. Of course counsel had explained to him that the offences took place in a short time, would ask the sentence to be concurrent if possible.

Sentence

16.  All 3 premises that the defendant burgled are domestic premises. It is well established that the sentencing tariff for burglary of domestic premises is a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment. The only consideration in relation to sentencing of the defendant in the present case is the matter of totality.

17.  The 3 offences were committed on different days, with 9 days and 16 days between charge 1 and 2 and charge 2 and 3 respectively. They were committed in the locality of Yaumatei and Hong Hom, in different buildings. They were all forced entries. Save for charge 2, the offences were committed at a time when the residents were unlikely to be inside the flat. As for charge 2, it was committed at around 8:20pm, when it would be expected that the resident would be returning home for dinner.

18.  Having said that, I find that there are no further aggravating factors in each of the offence other than the fact that the defendant had committed the offences in quick succession.

19.  I find that a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment for each charge is the appropriate starting point. Having considered the matter of totality, I order that 1 year in each of charge 2 and 3 should run consecutively to the sentence in charge 1. The total sentence is therefore 4 years' imprisonment.

20.  I am given to understand that the defendant has already finished serving his previous sentence. In case that information is incorrect, I will order that this fresh sentence be served wholly concurrently with his present sentence, should there be any.