HKSAR v. Joginder Singh

DCCC 739/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 739 OF 2016

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.At the beginning of the hearing, the court was informed by the defence that the defendant might be suffering from some sort of mental illness. So the case was adjourned to enable two psychiatrists’ reports to be prepared on the defendant. Now, the reports are before the court. The psychiatrists said the defendant has no mental problems and is fit to plead.

2.The defendant, an Indian youth, pleaded guilty before me to one count of burglary. 

3.The property being burgled is a restaurant called Fairwood situated in Laguna Plaza, Kwun Tong. And in fact the defendant was employed as a dishwasher at the restaurant at the time of the offence. 

4.What happened was after the restaurant was closed for the night on the day of offence, 20 June 2016, the defendant went back there and gained access by breaking the glass of the backdoor of the restaurant.  He then took away the cash register only to find that later there was no cash inside.  He then dumped it in the courtyard outside his residence. 

5.A staff member of the restaurant, Miss Cheung, came back to work in the following morning.  She discovered that the backdoor was broken and the cash register missing, and there was a crowbar not belonging to the restaurant at the cash counter. 

6.The defendant’s action was captured by the CCTV installed in the restaurant as well as in the plaza. The police were very quick to locate the defendant on the following day and had him taken into custody.  Under caution, he admitted the offence.

7.The restaurant suffered no losses in terms of cash except incurring $6,000 for replacing the broken door and the stolen cash register.

8.The defendant, aged 23, has no prior criminal history.  He came to Hong Kong about 10 years ago.  He now lives with his parents; mother, a dishwasher, father, a security guard. 

9.The court was told that the defendant received no education at all, so he is unable to read or write. Nevertheless, the defendant has submitted a letter to court which was written with the help of a fellow inmate while in custody.  In the letter he admitted his guilt and said that he did not do so (pleading guilty) at the first time in court because he was just too nervous.

10.Counsel said the defendant had a few beers before the event but stressed that though he was intoxicated at the time of the offence, he knew what he was doing at that time.  Defendant said through his lawyer that this was the first time he had alcohol and it would be his last and he will not drink alcohol any more.

11.As far as compensation is concerned, defendant is willing to pay for the damage he had caused to the restaurant. 

12.There are sentencing guidelines for this type of offence.  For non-domestic premises, in the absence of aggravating features, a term of 30 months’ imprisonment is to be considered.

13.Having heard the mitigation, I see no reason to depart from the sentencing guidelines.  I take 30 months as starting point.  There are aggravating features in the case, in that the defendant had used tools to break in the restaurant and caused damage to the door of the restaurant.  I would have increased the starting point on this factor had it not been for the fact that the defendant is willing to fully compensate the restaurant owner for the damage.

14.As far as mitigation is concerned, apart from his guilty plea, there is not anything of substance.  The defendant is entitled to one-third discount.  After deduction, he is sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.

15.Defendant is ordered to pay compensation in the sum of $6,000 to the restaurant and he has 7 days to pay.