HKSAR v. Gurmeet Singh

DCCC 318/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 318 OF 2016

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant stands convicted after trial of one charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1) (b) of the Theft Ordinance[1].

2.Full particulars of the offence are set out in my verdict delivered today.  The burgled premises are a residential flat at 3rd Floor, No. 30 Gillies Avenue South in Hung Hom.  The flat had been acquired by Asia Charming Limited in January 2011.  On acquisition the locks were changed. 

3.Security guards were employed to watch the building, including the flat.   The flat had been secured by a lock and chain.  On 3 February this year the security guard Mahmood Sajid carried out his regular morning patrol.  Mr Mahmood checked all the doors and locks and found the flat was secured. 

4.The defendant was found inside the flat at 12:13 p.m.  At 12:16 p.m. the police arrived.  The defendant was found carrying a rucksack containing a range of tools including crow bars, pliers and screwdrivers.  The defendant was holding the rice cooker in his hand and the stove and speakers in a bag on his shoulder.  The defendant was arrested and admitted under caution taking the stove, rice cooker and speakers for his own use. 

Mitigation

5.In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Richmond, including that he has a young family to look after.  I take into account the defendant has no convictions for offences of dishonesty.

6.The correct starting point for a single burglary of residential premises committed by a first offender of full age where there are no aggravating or mitigating features is 3 years imprisonment. 

7.I am told that the whole building was vacant, awaiting re-development.  Lower starting points have been taken where the premises are not occupied.  In HKSAR v Chau Man Ying[2] the appellant was sentenced to 2 years after trial for burglary of a flat in a vacant residential building awaiting redevelopment. 

8.Considering the burglary was opportunistic; the premises were almost derelict and the value of the property stolen was very low the Court of Appeal substituted a sentence which enabled the appellant’s immediate release.  The appellant had been in custody almost 12 months. 

9.Mr Richmond submits the burglary was opportunistic.  I disagree.  The flat was secured and needed to be broken into to gain entry. The defendant was carrying tools with him at the time of the burglary.

10.In HKSAR v Lee Chiu Yui [3]the Court of Appeal held where the burglar had with him an array of housebreaking tools when burgling a temporary office which was cleared out with all properties removed and was ready to be demolished the appropriate sentence after trial was 2 years imprisonment.   

11.The Court of Appeal at §10 referred to the judgment in HKSAR v Shea Pat Chi[4] where the Court of Appeal upheld a 2 year sentence for burglary of vacant domestic premises where valuable property was unlikely to be found. 

12.In the absence of any evidence as to the value of the stolen goods, I accept the submission of Mr Richmond that they were of little value. 

13.In the circumstances I am satisfied the appropriate starting point is 2 years imprisonment. The defendant is sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. 

[1] Cap 210.

[2] CACC 439/2011.

[3] CACC 24/2014.

[4] CACC 196/2012 (Chinese judgment)