HKSAR v. GILL JATINDER SINGH

DCCC 390/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 390 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

 ---------------------

1.  Defendant has pleaded guilty to six charges in total: five charges of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and one charge of attempted burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(a) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.

2.  Of the six premises, five were commercial, non-domestic premises.  One premise, of Charge 2, was a residential unit. When the defendant broke in and burgled the all premises, no one was present. It seemed the defendant broke into all premises when they were unoccupied and locked up.  The defendant stole what he could that was valuable.  That included computers, cash, other electronic items such as cameras, iPad, iPod and iPhones.

3.  All six offences took place just over a one-month period between 2 December 2012 and 9 January 2013.  In three of the six premises, the defendant left his DNA behind by drinking from cans and leaving the cans in the premises.  The defendant was caught red-handed as he climbed out of the Habibi Café in Central, the premises of Charge 6.  I will not list the loss suffered by individual victims but the loss runs into tens of thousands of dollars.

4.  The defendant does not have a clear record.  He has 24 previous convictions, of which 13 are for burglary and 3 for theft.  In May 2011, he was convicted of 13 charges of burglary and sentenced to a total of 23 months in the District Court.  Six months after his release from prison for those offences, he committed the offences he faces today. Between his arrest for these offences and today’s court appearance, he has been sentenced to drug addiction treatment centre in March for possession of dangerous drugs.

5.  I have heard mitigation in full put forward on his behalf.  Defendant is 35 years old and was born in Hong Kong.  His family essentially are in India, and that includes two sons who are in India.  It seems the defendant is estranged from his family.  He is in Hong Kong here alone but does have a younger sister in Hong Kong.  He did have a BNO passport but when it lapsed, I have been told he was not able to renew it. That may have something to do with him having been served a deportation order. His position is, I have been told, is that he is now stateless and presently in Hong Kong because the Immigration Department has issued him with a reconnaissance form, a Form 8.  That means he is not able to work legally.  I have been told he, because of his situation, is in financial difficulty and tried to rectify his financial situation by committing these burglaries.  On top of that, he is a long-term drug addict.  His best mitigation is his plea today.

6.  Defence counsel has set out the guidelines for burglaries and, quite rightly, he has said a 3 years’ starting point would be appropriate for burglary of domestic premises if there are no aggravating or mitigating factors.  And where the burglary is relating to non-domestic premises, a starting point would be 2 and a half years’ imprisonment if there are no aggravating or mitigating factors.

7.  Having considered the facts, the charges and mitigation, I do not find any aggravating or mitigating factors.  I will consider mitigation put forward, the facts, the loss suffered by victims and the usual guidelines for offences of this nature.  I see no reason to depart from those guidelines.

8.  Charge 5 is an attempted burglary where the defendant did break in but was scared off by an alarm system.  I intend to impose the same starting point as if it was a burglary charge.

9.  For Charges 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, I take a starting point of 2 years and 6 months.  For Charge 2, I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.  The defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third for his plea today.  Charge 1, I impose a sentence of 20 months; Charge 2, 24 months; Charge 3, 4, 5 and 6, each charge will be a 20‑month term of imprisonment. 

10.  I take into account the offences were committed over a period of just over one month.  It would not be appropriate to make all charges concurrent because that would not reflect the number of offences committed.  I will take into account the totality principle and will order that part of the sentences will be served consecutively and part concurrently.  For Charge 1, I will order that of the 20 months, 2 months will be consecutive to Charge 2.  For Charge 3, of that 20 months’ sentence, 2 months will be consecutive to Charge 2.  For Charge 4, again for that 20 months, 2 months will be served consecutively to Charge 2.  For Charge 5, of that 20 months, 1 month will be served consecutively to Charge 2.  For Charge 6, of that 20 months, 2 months will be consecutive to Charge 2.  The balance of those sentences will be concurrent to Charge 2. 

11.  The overall sentence will be 33 months. Therefore, the overall sentence is 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. You understand the sentence?

DEFENDANT: Yes.