HKSAR v. KHAN ASIF

DCCC 1350/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1350 OF 2010

____________

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to two charges of burglary, contrary to section 11 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

2.  In summary in the early hours of the 9th September last year the defendant ransacked the Ping Kee Waste-Paper Factory in Aberdeen Street, Central and stole $600 from the cash drawer. 

3.  In the early hours of the 1st November last year the defendant ransacked the offices of RTC (Hong Kong) Limited, a trading company in Li Yuen Street, Central and stole 4 mobile phones and 10 game players valued at $11,000 and $45,000 in cash.

4.  The proprietor of RTC (Hong Kong) Limited viewed the CCTV and recognised the defendant was the one who ransacked the premises.  The proprietor led the police to where the defendant worked, who was then arrested.  At the defendant’s home the police found the shirt the defendant was seen wearing when burgling the offices of RTC (Hong Kong) Limited.  In the defendant’s bag, found in his work place, the police recovered two of the game players stolen in the burglary.     

5.  In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Beukema, including that the defendant committed the offences to support his drug addiction and that he is now determined to kick his drug habit. 

6.  The correct starting point for a single burglary of non-domestic premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.  (see Attorney General v LUI Kam-chi [1993] 1 HKC 215 as applied in HKSAR v CHENG Wai-kai   CACC 338/2007). 

7.  Giving the defendant full credit for his pleas of guilty he is sentenced to 1 year and 8 months imprisonment on each charge.  The two burglaries committed almost two months apart are separate and distinct for which consecutive sentences are appropriate (see for example HKSAR v NG Ngai-shan CACC 197/2008). This would make a total sentence of 3 years and 4 months imprisonment.  Taking into account the nature of the burglaries, both premises being ransacked, and not insubstantial property stolen in the second burglary, I am satisfied a total sentence of  2 years and 8 months imprisonment is appropriate . 

8.  The defendant is sentenced as follows:

Charge 1 – 1 year and 8 months imprisonment; and

Charge 2 – 1 year and 8 months imprisonment;

1 year consecutive and 8 months concurrent to charge 1.

I am satisfied a total sentence of 2 years and 8 months imprisonment properly reflects the criminal culpability of the defendant on the two charges.