HKSAR v. Gill Jatinder Singh (also known as Singh Gill Jatinder)

DCCC 171/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 171 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to 15 counts of Burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

Summary of facts

2.Between the period of 28 April and 28 July 2016, the defendant entered into 15 different premises located in Tsim Sha Tsui, Wan Chai and Causeway Bay as a trespasser and stole from the above premises various properties including cash, computers, cameras, watches and other miscellaneous items.  The total value of the stolen properties is about HK$355,877.  In the above 15 premises, 11 of them were commercial premises (Charges 1 to 8, 12, 13 and 15) and 4 were domestic premises (Charges 9 to 11 and 14).

3.In Charge 1, the defendant used a hammer to break a hole on the wall of the premises to gain entry.  In all other Charges, the defendant entered into the premises either by opened unlocked windows or doors of the premises or broke the windows to gain entry.  DNA of the defendant was found in the subject premises of Charges 1 to 4, 10 to 13 and 15.  The palm print of the defendant was also found in the subject premises of Charge 5.

4.In the video-recorded interviews, the defendant admitted that he committed the above 15 burglaries by himself.  He admitted he took some cash and various properties from the premises but he could not remember how much cash and how many properties he had stolen.  He said he sold some of the stolen properties and used some of the money for drugs.

Mitigation

5.In mitigation, Defence told the court that the defendant is now 39 years of age.  He is not married but has two sons in India.  His parents came from India but he was born in Hong Kong.  He received education in Hong Kong up to junior secondary level.  He did go back to India for some years and returned to Hong Kong in 2005.  Thereafter, he was embroiled with the Government of the HKSAR in a legal battle about his Hong Kong residency.  I was told that in the end the defendant succeeded in regaining his status as a Hong Kong resident.

6.Concerning criminal records, the defendant has altogether 14 previous convictions.  Among these convictions, 3 of them are theft convictions. Further, in 2011 and 2013 he was convicted of multiple counts of burglary and was sentenced to 33 months’ and 27 months’ imprisonment respectively.

7.Defence submitted that the defendant was not able to secure a stable job for many years and has been addicted to ice and cocaine for some time.  He was in need of money and therefore committed the present offences.  Defence submitted that the defendant was very remorseful and he pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity.  As there are altogether 15 charges, defence urged the court to consider totality principle and sentence the defendant as lenient as possible.

Discussion

8.The Court of Appeal had set down clear guidelines in sentencing cases of burglary.  For burglary of domestic premises, for a first offender where there are no aggravating circumstances, the starting point should be 3 years’ imprisonment: HKSAR v Lau Pang [2004] 3 HKLRD 565.  For burglary of commercial premises, the appropriate starting point should be 2.5 years’ imprisonment: R v Wong Man [1993] 1 HKC 80.

9.In HKSAR v Cheng Wai Kai [2008] HKCU 932, Yeung JA set out the following aggravating features:-

“The starting point can be adjusted upwards if there are aggravating circumstances such as (1) the offence is carefully planned and skillfully executed involving the use of heavy instruments or equipment; (2) the offence is committed by two or more people; (3) the offence targets at substantial premises and involves substantial properties; (4) the offender is a professional burglar and not just an opportunist; (5) the offender has previous convictions, particularly previous convictions of a similar nature, and (6) the offender commits multiple offences”

10.In the present case, there are clear aggravating features.  Firstly, the defendant committed a series of burglary within a relatively short period of time.  Secondly, these were not opportunistic crimes.  The defendant committed these offences with some planning and in some occasions tools were used. Thirdly, the total value of the stolen properties is quite substantial. Fourthly, this is the defendant’s third burglary conviction within a period of 6 years.

11.As there are altogether 15 charges, I am of the view that it is more appropriate to adopt a global starting point instead of setting out individual starting point for each charge.  Considered all the circumstances of the case, personal background of the defendant, the above aggravating features, the mitigation put forward, for all 15 charges, I adopt 5.5 years as the starting point.  The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges and I give him one-third discount. Therefore, for Charges 1 to 15, the defendant is sentenced to 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment and I order the sentences to be served wholly concurrently.  The total sentence is 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.