HKSAR v. RANA RAJAN

DCCC 826/2018

[2019] HKDC 848

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 826 OF 2018

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of burglary.

2.  Full particulars of the offence are set out in the facts admitted by the defendant.  In a gist, at around 2:47 am on 23 July 2018, the defendant entered into a guesthouse in Yuen Long.  He stole a wallet from a room of the guesthouse.  The wallet worth about HK$600, and contained cash of HK$13,000, RMB 6,500 (equivalent to about HK$7,650), one mainland China Exit/Entry permit for Travelling to and from Hong Kong and Macau, one China Identity Card, 5 bank cards, one driving licence and one People’s Republic of China social insurance card.

Mitigation

3.  The defendant is a Nepalese and is now 32 years old.  He has 7 previous conviction records of which 6 relates to theft.  The defendant committed the offence alone.  At the material time, he was a construction worker.  In mitigation, I am told that the defendant committed the present offence due to financial needs which arose as a result of his mother’s hospitalization in Nepal.

4.  I am told that the defendant maintains a psychological addiction to drugs and requests for a DATC report with a view to sentencing him to DATC.

Sentence

5.  The Court of Appeal states clearly in HKSAR v Ng Wai Hing [2003] 2 HKLRD 338 at p 343B-C that “burglary of a hotel room should at least attract the same sentence as that of domestic premises.”

6.  Offence of domestic burglary carries a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment after trial.

7.  Ms Monica Chow, counsel for the defendant, not only fairly concedes that there is no authority of defendants being sentenced to DATC for burglary cases but also refers me to the case of HKSAR v Wan Wai Lan, DCCC 527/2014, whereby DATC report was requested but declined for a case also concerning burglary.

8.  I agree that sentencing to DATC would not reflect the gravity of the offence committed by the defendant.  The only sentencing option is an immediate custodial sentence.

9.  This is the first offence of burglary committed by the defendant.  Taking into account of all the circumstance, I am prepared to take the starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment despite the defendant has 6 previous conviction records of theft and he was released from prison shortly before the commission of the present offence.  Giving the full credit for the plea of guilty, the defendant is sentence to 2 years’ imprisonment.