HKSAR v. SINGH GURPIAR

DCCC 111/2025

[2026] HKDC 841

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 111 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  Mr Singh faces a charge sheet consisting of 4 charges as follows.

2.  Charge 1 is Attempted robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.

3.  Charge 2 is Robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

4.  Charge 3 is Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

5.  Charge 4 is Possession of a dangerous drug, contrary to section 8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134.

6.  Before me, Mr Singh pleaded guilty to Charges 2 and 4, but not guilty to Charges 1 and 3.

7.  Prosecution asked that Charges 1 and 3 be left on court file not to be proceeded with without the leave of this court or the Court of Appeal.  Upon conviction of Mr Singh on Charges 2 and 4, I so ordered.

8.  Particulars of Charge 2 are that Mr Singh, on 30 July 2024, at the male toilet, 2^nd Floor, Heng On Shopping Centre, Heng On Estate, Ma On Shan, New Territories, in Hong Kong, robbed Lai Wo Choi of cash of $5,000 Hong Kong currency.

9.  Particulars of Charge 4 are that Mr Singh, on 30 July 2024, at Room 704, Heng Sing House, Heng On Estate, Ma On Shan, New Territories, in Hong Kong, had in his possession a dangerous drug, namely 0.22 grammes (sic) of a mixture containing heroin hydrochloride.

Facts admitted by Mr Singh

10.  PW1 Lai (aged 79) was the owner of a watch shop on 2/F of Heng On Shopping Centre, Heng On Estate in Ma On Shan.  He would stay in the shop to rest after close of business.

11.  On 30 July 2024, at about 0430 hours, while PW1 was filling his kettle in a male washroom also on 2/F of Heng On Shopping Centre, Mr Singh came out of the accessible toilet cubicle (“AT Cubicle”) and approached PW1.

12.  Mr Singh grappled PW1’s neck with his left arm causing pain to PW1, and snatched $5,000 from the right back pocket of PW1’s trousers.

13.  Mr Singh returned to the AT Cubicle and locked the door.  A short while later, Mr Singh came out of the AT Cubicle holding PW1’s cash in his right hand. Mr Singh fled from the male washroom.  PW1 gave chase but lost him.  Case was reported.

14.  At about 0955 hours the same day, Mr Singh was intercepted by the police at his residence in Room 704, Heng Sing House of Heng On Estate.  Armed with a search warrant, the police conducted a house search and found the following items:

(a) One white wrapping containing 0.22 gramme of a mixture containing heroin hydrochloride;

(b) One piece of foil paper;

(c) One straw;

(d) One lighter; and

(e) Cash of $900.

15.  Mr Singh was arrested for the offence of Robbery.  Mr Singh was also arrested for the offence of Possession of a dangerous drug.  Under caution, he admitted the drug was heroin for self-consumption.

16.  During a subsequent VRI, Mr Singh said that at about 0400 hours on 30 July 2024, he was in the AT Cubicle of the male washroom on 2/F of Heng On Shopping Centre; he had a dispute with PW1.  Mr Singh also said that he purchased the drug for $200 from an unknown male in Nam Cheong Street in Sham Shui Po at about 1000 hours on 29 July 2024 for self-consumption.

Criminal record

17.  Mr Singh has 14 previous convictions one similar (possession of dangerous drug) recorded in July 2022.

Antecedents

18.  Mr Singh, born in Hong Kong, is aged 44 (42 at the time of the offences), educated to secondary 3 in Hong Kong, gainfully employed at the time of arrest.  He was last discharged from Hei Ling Chau Correctional Institution in February 2024^[1]. Mr Singh is separated from his wife.  He has an elder sister who works as a manager. Mr Singh lived with his mother in public housing in Ma On Shan.

Mitigation

19.  Mr Christopher Grounds of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Singh.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

20.  At the time of arrest, Mr Singh did have employment as a delivery man earning around $20,000 a month.

21.  Items 1-8 of Mr Singh’s criminal record shows he used to be a nuisance and seemingly somewhat hot-headed.  He was fined and did suffer imprisonment though the longest period was 3 months (on 3 separate occasions).  Mr Singh was aged 22-29 when he committed those less serious offences.  Leaving aside the possession of dangerous drug conviction in 2022, he was out of trouble from 2010 to 2024.  He had calmed down from his previous nuisance-like character.

22.  Mr Singh did not have any convictions for stealing or dishonesty-related offences.

23.  Although Mr Singh has a previous similar conviction for possession of dangerous drug in 2022 for which he was sentenced to DATC, the present case involves only 0.22 gramme of a mixture containing an unquantified narcotic amount of heroin.  It was submitted that the actual heroin content was miniscule.

24.  There has been friction in his family because of the present case and Mr Singh does not want to lose his family or end up in court again for any offence in the future.  He wants to turn over a new leaf.

25.  Mr Singh lived with his mother.  He got up early.  In order not to disturb her, he went to a nearby shopping centre and used the same male washroom which PW1 also liked to use.  There was a 7-11 also on 2/F of the shopping centre near the entrance to male washroom.

26.  This is a case of unarmed robbery.  There are no tariff guidelines: HKSAR v Ku Kwok Wai [2012] 4 HKLRD 563, 565 at para 8.

27.  Mr Grounds also referred to two Court of Appeal cases discussed in Ku Kwok Wai itself, namely, HKSAR v Ting Chiu & Anor [2003] 3 HKLRD 378, and HKSAR v Chan Sin Leung CACC 48/2006.

28.  Finally, Mr Grounds referred to the Court of Appeal case of HKSAR v Lam Chun Nam [2008] 2 HKCLRT 137.

29.  Mr Grounds referred to these additional sentencing cases mainly for comparison purposes.

30.  Mr Grounds emphasized that in the present case:

(a) Mr Singh has been out of trouble since 2010 leaving aside the possession of dangerous drug conviction in 2022;

(b) He has no previous convictions for theft (dishonesty) or robbery;

(c) Now aged 44, Mr Singh was in his younger days a nuisance to the police and inclined to be disorderly (for which he has been punished), but that behaviour ceased 14 odd years prior to the current offences, drug matters apart;

(d) He acted solely on his own;

(e) Though PW1 was aged 79, he did not fall to the floor; and though he said he was “in pain” at the time of the robbery, there is no record of any injuries; indeed, he was able to give chase to Mr Singh; and

(f) There was a 7-11 open in the near vicinity and other people were around, so this was not a lonely and isolated public place (if that is relevant) even though the time was relatively early.

31.  It was therefore submitted that a starting point no higher than 3 years would be appropriate on Charge 2.

32.  On Charge 4, Mr Grounds emphasized that the narcotic quantity of heroin was miniscule.  It was submitted that based on HKSAR v Mok Cho Tik [2001] 1 HKC 261, 267C-D, a lesser sentence than the usual 12-18 months’ imprisonment may be imposed.  It was further submitted that there was no realistic possibility of any “latent risk” of sharing in this case.

33.  Mr Singh intends to finish with drugs and turn over a new leaf.

34.  Based on the fact that the offences subject of Charges 2 and 4 were interconnected in time, it was submitted that the associated sentences ought to run concurrently.  In any event, the court has to take into account totality.

35.  On 26 June 2025, when the matter was set down for trial, Mr Singh already indicated he would plead guilty to Charge 4.  He is therefore entitled to a 1/3 sentencing discount in respect of that charge.

36.  Later, on 20 March 2026, there was an agreement reached between the parties that if Mr Singh was additionally to plead guilty to Charge 2, the prosecution would apply for the remaining charges to be left on court file.  In the circumstances, Mr Grounds asked for ¼ to 1/3 sentencing discount in respect of Charge 2.

37.  In conclusion, the court is urged to impose a lenient and merciful total sentence on Mr Singh.

38.  Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Grounds submitted that Mr Singh committed the robbery offence because there was a history of disputes between Mr Singh and PW1.

Sentence

39.  Although Mr Singh has 9 previous convictions relating to violence, the last one of which was recorded 15 years ago.  I shall not hold them against Mr Singh.

40.  On Charge 2, I bear in mind no weapon was used but note the senior age of the victim and that the stolen sum of $5,000 was largely unrecovered.  I adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.

41.  Mr Singh did not indicate his plea at the earliest opportunity but only did so about 2 months prior to trial date.  I will grant him ¼ sentencing discount from the starting point.

42.  On Charge 4, I agree with the submission that the amount of heroin is small and I therefore adopt a starting point of 4 ½ months’ imprisonment only, with no enhancement for latent risk of re-distribution.  Mr Singh pleaded guilty in good time earning for himself the full 1/3 sentencing discount.

43.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight such as would permit me to reduce the sentences further.

44.  The two offences, though proximate in time, took place at two different locations.  The second offence did not naturally flow from the first; nor are they offences of the same or similar nature.  One cannot really say that they were concomitant offences.

45.  As such, there is little ground for making the associated sentences run concurrently with one another.  However, this court has to consider the principle of totality and how it applies to the present case and Mr Singh.

46.  In imposing the final overall sentence, I will take into account totality and will make an appropriate order accordingly.

(Mr Singh, please stand)

47.  On Charge 2, the sentence is 27 months’ imprisonment.

48.  On Charge 4, the sentence is 3 months’ imprisonment.

49.  I order that 2 months of the sentence on Charge 4 do run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 2, making a final overall sentence of 29 months’ imprisonment for Mr Singh.

50.  Before closing, I wish to express my gratitude to Mr Grounds for his very comprehensive and helpful submissions to the court.

[1] The late discharge from DATC was due to a recall in November 2023.