HKSAR v. Anmol Singh

DCCC 1061/2018

[2019] HKDC 773

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1061 OF 2018

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

Charges

1.The defendant pleads guilty to Charge 1 and Charge 2.  Both are burglary offences.

Facts

2.Both burglaries occurred at adjacent residential premises at 2nd Floor, No 52 Kweilin Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon.  Offence 1 took place in Flat C, while offence 2 occurred in Flat B of that building.

3.Madam Yang and her family lived in Flat C, while Madam Li lived in Flat B.

4.On 9 August 2018, the residents of the two premises left their home respectively.  They had secured all the doors and windows before going out.

5.At 6:10 pm that day, police officers found the defendant acting furtively in the street.  He was carrying a rod-like object.  He was seen entering the building at No 52 Kweilin Street.  He came down from the building about half an hour later.

6.Police officers stopped and searched the defendant.  They found the rod-like object he was carrying was a crowbar.  In the plastic bag the defendant was carrying, there were a pair of gloves and a mask.  There were various items in the pockets of the defendant’s shorts, including a torch and cash, $19,612.40. It was found this cash was part of the money the defendant had just stolen from Flat C.

7.The defendant was also found carrying a backpack then.  It contained many items, including the stolen properties mentioned in Charge 1 and Charge 2.

8.Madam Yang of Flat C and Madam Li of Flat B later returned home.  They found there were signs of prising open of their door locks and ransacking inside their flats.

9.Madam Yang was able to identify those stolen items as listed in paragraph 4 and paragraph 5 of the Summary of Facts to be her lost property. The backpack, which the defendant was found carrying, and the $19,612.40 cash in his pockets were also Madam Yang’s property.

10.Madam Li of Flat B could also identify the stolen items as listed in paragraph 6 of the Summary of Facts to be her lost property.

11.The total value of all the stolen properties in Charge 1 and Charge 2 was about $44,000.

Record

12.The defendant came to Hong Kong in 2006 from India to seek asylum.  He is now aged 34.  He had six previous criminal convictions between 2013 and 2018; four were related to theft, two were for dangerous drugs.  His last conviction was on 27 August 2018.  He was sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment for theft in the Kowloon City Magistracy.  Prosecutor says that theft offence took place on 5 August 2018.  The defendant was arrested and then given police bail pending appearance in court in late August 2018.  The defendant committed the present two burglaries on 9 August 2018, while on police bail in that theft case.

13.Defence counsel tells the court that the defendant picked up an unattended mobile phone in that theft case.  He was given an 8-month sentence and he has now finished it.  That sentence ended in early February this year.

Mitigation

14.Defence counsel says the defendant came from India to seek asylum.  Now, he intends to go back to his country as soon as he can be released.

15.Counsel says the defendant was addicted to dangerous drugs in the past. That habit drove him to the commission of other offences, including the present ones.  But now, during remand, the defendant has been cleared of drugs. Counsel says the defendant is now remorseful.  He is determined to turn a new leaf.  He intends to go back to India upon release from prison.

16.Counsel says the present two burglaries are domestic burglaries.  The starting point for each offence should be 3 years’ imprisonment.  However, both offences took place on the same day, on the same floor of the same building.  Counsel says they thus can be considered as one incident, so that the court can pass concurrent sentences.

17.Counsel agrees that the defendant committed the two burglaries while on police bail for his last theft offence, which took place on 5 August 2018. However, the court should look at the proximity of all the three offences and consider their totality.

18.Counsel says the defendant has already completed the 8-month sentence in February this year, so it cannot be made to run concurrently with the sentences for the present two burglaries to any extent.  Counsel says that probably can counterbalance the sentence enhancement effect arising from the defendant’s breach of police bail in the theft case in August 2018.

Sentence

19.The defendant burgled two adjacent residential premises at the same floor of the same building in Sham Shui Po in the evening of 9 August 2018.

20.He was caught by the police shortly after he had committed the two offences.  All the stolen properties were recovered.  They were worth around $44,000.

21.The defendant was found to have equipped himself with a crowbar, a pair of gloves, a mask and a torch for the burglaries.  He prised open the door locks of the two premises before ransacking the place.  There was nobody inside the flats then.

22.I agree with defence counsel that the sentence enhancing effect arising from the defendant’s breach of police bail could be offset by the fact that he had been given an 8-month sentence in that theft case and he has now already completed that sentence.  Therefore, no part of that sentence can be made to run concurrently with the sentences for the present two offences to any extent.

23.The present two offences are domestic burglaries.  The defendant equipped himself sufficiently for their commission.  He prised open the door locks of the two flats.  He stole quite a number of items worth a total of $44,000 from the two premises.  Fortunately, the police acted on time and recovered all the stolen properties.

24.I adopt 3 years’ imprisonment as the starting point for each of Charge 1 and Charge 2.  After plea, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment on each of those two charges.

25.I disagree to defence counsel’s suggestion that the two terms of sentence should run entirely concurrently.

26.The two burglaries took place on the same day at adjacent premises on the same floor of the same building.  But those two premises were separate flats, individually secured by door locks.  The defendant prised open the door locks and burgled the two places, one after another.  The two burglaries were separate offences.  The two terms of imprisonment cannot run entirely concurrently.  I order 4 months of the sentence in Charge 2 to run consecutively to the 24 months’ imprisonment in Charge 1.  The total sentence for the defendant pleading guilty to both burglary charges is therefore 28 months’ imprisonment.