HKSAR v. Nasir Uddin

DCCC 901/2018

[2019] HKDC 368

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 901 OF 2018

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of “Burglary”.

Facts of the case

2.The premises concerned in this case is the construction site of “Enchantee”, a residential estate development, located at Nos 245-247 Tai Kok Tsui Road, Tai Kok Tsui, Kowloon.  In August 2018, 19 storeys of the building had been constructed with walls erected on the sides.

3.At around 10:00 pm on 20 August 2018, the security guard of the site, while patrolling on the Ground Floor, heard some noise coming from the 1^st Floor.  He went upstairs and found the defendant trying to slide a copper pipe of around 6 to 7 metres long (valued at HK$6,000) away onto the Ground Floor through the window space.  The defendant was immediately subdued and the case was reported.

4.Under arrest and caution, the defendant admitted that while he was passing through the site, he saw that a door was open, and therefore went up to the 1^st Floor of the building and, out of greed, stole the copper pipe.  He had no money, and intended to gain some by selling the copper pipe.

Mitigation

5.The defendant, aged 47, was born in Pakistan.  He is single.  He received primary education in Pakistan, and was unemployed at the time of his arrest.  Prior to the present case, he had 20 previous criminal records involving 27 charges, 1 of which was burglary, and 17 were theft or attempted theft.

6.In mitigation, the defendant submitted that because of his leg problems, he could not work, and therefore committed the offence in this case.  He asked the court to be as lenient as possible.

Sentence

7.The Court of Appeal has laid down clear sentencing guidelines for burglary involving non-domestic premises.  According to the guidelines, the starting point for a single burglary of non-domestic premises is 2½ years’ imprisonment.

8.Although the premises concerned in this case was a residential estate development, it was still under construction at the material time, and is therefore to be considered as a non-domestic premises.  Accordingly, without any aggravating factors, the appropriate starting point in this case is 2½ years’ imprisonment.

9.The defendant indicated on plea day that he would plead guilty to the charge, and is therefore entitled to a full one-third discount on his sentence. It is thus reduced to 1 year and 8 months.

10.There being no other mitigating factors, the defendant is sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.