HKSAR v. Gurung Lok Bahadur

DCCC 170/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 170 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to Charge 1, attempted theft; and Charge 2, going equipped for stealing.

2.The facts admitted by the defendant revealed that Mr Chan is the owner of a village house, (“the house”), located at a village in Tuen Mun.  The house is surrounded by an open area that is fenced off by a tall wire mesh fence with a gate to enter.  Mr Chan kept his bicycle inside the fenced parameter near the gate.

3.On 14 January 2016, at about 3.30 in the afternoon, Miss Leung was walking on her way home when she saw the defendant pulling and shaking the secured gate of the house.  At that time the defendant was wearing a cap, face mask, gloves and was carrying a black rucksack.   When he saw Miss Leung, he stopped pulling the gate.  When Miss Leung reached her home, she informed Mr Chan by telephone.

4.Mr Chan immediately returned to his house and found that the gate was still secured and nothing was amiss.  He saw the defendant wandering in the vicinity of his house.  Feeling suspicious, he called the police.  The police later arrived and stopped the defendant at a nearby grocery store. 

5.Miss Leung also identified the defendant to the police. 

6.Under caution, the defendant said he had tried to open the gate in order to steal the bicycle.  This is Charge 1. 

7.Upon a search of the defendant, the gloves that he had been seen wearing earlier were in his jeans pocket.  Inside his rucksack were the face mask, two torches, two screwdrivers and a pair of scissors. 

8.The defendant is aged 38.  He has a poor criminal record for 13 previous convictions involving 10 dishonest offences, two of which were theft and six for burglaries.  He was last discharged from prison on 24 September 2015. 

9.In mitigation, Mr Poots, counsel for the defendant, tells the court that the defendant’s family members have all emigrated to other countries.  Although unmarried, the defendant is living with an Indonesian girlfriend who is an asylum seeker in Hong Kong.  They have a 3 months old daughter.  Because of his criminal record, it was difficult for him to find a job and he was therefore unemployed at the time of the offences.  He was in need of money for the family. 

10.It is submitted that the present offences are rather minor and the sentences for the two offences should run concurrently.

11.There is no sentencing guideline for the offences that the defendant committed.

12.The whole circumstances of the case must be considered.  The offences were committed in daytime.  The defendant was in possession of equipment for stealing, including gloves and torches.  He was trying to open the secured gate at the fence of the house.

13.He has a long history of convictions for dishonest offences including burglary, theft and going equipped.  The previous sentences apparently could not deter him from stealing.  He committed the present offences only four months after his discharge from the prison.  He must be given a deterrent sentence in the interest of the community.

14.On the other hand, I take into consideration his family circumstances.  He is to be sentenced for his attempt to steal a bicycle, not for burglary.  Nothing was successfully stolen.  No property was damaged.  That said, if there were inhabitants inside the house, they might be alarmed upon seeing the defendant pulling and shaking the gate at the fence. 

15.In all the circumstances, I will take 2 years’ imprisonment as the starting point for Charge 1 and 18 months for Charge 2. The sentences will run concurrently.  The defendant will have one-third reduction for his plea of guilty and that is the only mitigating factor in the case.

16.In the result, the defendant is sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment on Charge 1 and 12 months’ imprisonment on Charge 2, both sentences to run concurrently.