HKSAR v. TAMANG NORBU LAMA

DCCC 1027/2024

[2025] HKDC 2108

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1027 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to a single charge of criminal damage, contrary to Sections 60(1)  and 63(2)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.  Damage occurred at a shop in Battery Street in Yau Ma Tei where the defendant with another person damaged various items set out in the charge.  We see the mirror, two refrigerators, glass window, door and items therein.

2.  The Summary of Facts sets out some more detail of how that occurred.  The defendant has agreed these facts.  PW1, described as “X”, is the co-owner of a restaurant selling Pakistani food in something called the New Minna Centre which is in Battery Street in Kowloon. On 28 June 2022, the defendant with another man entered the shop.  They seemed to be holding a hammer and rod-like object and had surgical masks down to their chins.  At the time, the Summary of Facts says that they asked for some food recommendations.  They then left the shop returning shortly after.  The defendant is described as using a hammer to smash a refrigerator inside the shop.  He, together with another man, then smashed items inside the shop including a mirror, two refrigerators, a glass window, the door of the shop.  PW1 made an escape and the defendant and the other male left before the police arrived.  The total repair cost is said to be $70,000.  The presence of the defendant and the male were captured on the CCTV camera and those are the facts that have been agreed.

3.  I deal with the defendant’s background now.  He is now 29 years old of Nepalese origin.  He came to Hong Kong as a child in 1999 and is a Hong Kong Permanent Resident.  He has a poor criminal record dating back to 2008 when he was originally sent to the Tsuen Mun Children’s Juvenile Home for attempted theft.  Have been consistent convictions in 2011 then 2018, 2021 for offences such as breaching his probation order, robbery and trafficking in a dangerous drug.  The most relevant conviction occurred on 9 April 2025 when he was convicted of robbery and received a sentence of 4 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.  It is relevant to the sentencing exercise today because this offence and the robbery were committed within a timeframe in 2021 to 2022.  The robbery was committed on 3 March 2020 with the defendant being arrested on 30 March 2021, him entering a plea of guilty in June of 2024 and sentenced in April 2025. 

4.  As far as this offence is concerned, the offence had been committed in 2022, being arrested in July, 27 July 2024, and finally being convicted in December 2025, the relevance of the dates being that it may be argued that the sentences could have been dealt with at the same time and the sentence may well have been altered if that is taken into account and even the rest of defendant’s mitigation has claimed that he has learnt a lesson from his present incarceration and said it is said his remand for the present case overlaps with his sentence for the last offence.  It represents a long period that has been spent in custody and the defendant would like to be released and start a new life together with a fiancée that is waiting for him. He asks for a sentence as lenient as possible. 

5.  As far as the approach to sentence is concerned, there are of course no guideline sentences for criminal damage, it depends very much on the individual factors of each case.  In this case there is up to $70,000-worth of damage caused.  It has an intimidatory nature, the criminal damage being to a commercial premises and also committed by more than one person.  These are all matters that aggravate the offence that has been committed by the defendant.

6.  The defendant has offered compensation but it appears as he is presently remanded and will be serving a sentence of imprisonment he is not in a position to realistically pay any compensation. Taking into account all the factors that I have set out, I would take a starting point for sentence on this charge at 21 months’ imprisonment.

7.  The defendant is entitled, I understand, to a full one-third discount as plea was offered to this particular charge at an early stage.  That would lead to a sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment.  I also take into account the proximity of this sentencing to the sentencing in the robbery case and there may have been some overlap, so I will reduce that sentence by a further 3 months to a head and final sentence of 11 months’ imprisonment for this offence.  So the sentence will be one of 11 months’ imprisonment.