HKSAR v. Anurag Singh
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 666/2017 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 13 June 2018.
1. The defendant is represented by a very able lawyer. The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of attempted burglary.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
DCCC 666/2017 [2018] HKDC 720 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 666 OF 2017 --------------------------
--------------------------
----------------------------------------- REASONS FOR SENTENCE ----------------------------------------- 1.The defendant is represented by a very able lawyer. The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of attempted burglary. Summary of facts 2.In the early morning of that day, the defendant with another person used a BBQ fork to open the rear door at the ground floor of a building and thereby managed to enter it. They were there inside in order to see if anything valuable could be stolen but eventually nothing was found, and when they were leaving the building they were stopped by the police. The building was a deserted building, which was under construction, where, apart from a security guard, there was nobody. Mitigation 3.The defendant is 27 years old. He is single. He came to Hong Kong from India in year 2013. He has been convicted by law courts four times. Two times were possession of dangerous drugs, and two times were theft offences which he committed while on bail of this case and which we know is an aggravating factor in terms of sentence. 4.The defendant frankly admits the present offence and is asking this court to be as lenient as possible to him. Consideration 5.The fact that it was a deserted building necessitates a discount from the normal burglary or attempted burglary sentencing guideline. 6.Having considered Lee Chiu Yui, CACC 24/2014, this court adopts a similar starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment, which is to be discounted by one-third because of the defendant’s plea. Sentence 7.Eventually today the court sentence the defendant to 16 months’ imprisonment.
|
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under DCCC 666/2017