HKSAR v. Mandeep Singh

DCCC 816/2020

[2021] HKDC 1054

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 816 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.This is a case of domestic burglary. Miss Hou, an occupant of a room in a sub-divided flat in Austin Mansion, Austin Road, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon, secured the room door before leaving on a day in June 2018.

2.Two days later when she returned, the room had been ransacked by a burglar — the room door damaged with extensive prize marks, and a smartphone worth $3,000 and a bottle of perfume ($500)  had gone missing. A report was made to the police.

3.Police came to investigate and lifted some fingerprints from the room which were later found to match with those of the defendant. More than two years later on 9 August 2020, the defendant was arrested for the offence of burglary.

4.The Defendant pleaded guilty before me to one count of burglary.

5.The defendant, an Indian-born Hong Kong resident, aged 41, has 3 prior convictions. His first conviction was in 1997, he was then fined for breach of condition of stay; 20 years later he was found illegal gambling and was fined again; his last conviction is possession of dangerous drug back in September 2018 for which he was sent to the drug addiction treatment centre.

6.In mitigation, the court heard that the defendant came to Hong Kong in 1997, and has stayed here ever since, that would mean he has been living here for over half of his life.

7.He was married in 2001, and has 5 children (aged 21, 19, 17, 11 and 9)  with his wife. His eldest daughter is married and living out with her husband. His other four children resided with him prior to his arrest and are still in full time education. The defendant’s wife has back pain issues which means she is unable to work, and without assistance from the defendant is now fully reliant on CSSA.

8.The defendant used to be a van driver on and off, however, prior to arrest he struggled to gain enough work and had to make do with an average of around $5,000 per month.

9.The defendant had hip surgery in 2017 on the left side but he still feels pain on the right side, and he was told he will require surgery to that side as well. Counsel for the defendant, Miss Herbert, said that his pain had caused him some additional hardship whilst in custody and affected his work prior to arrest.

10.While agreeing that the starting point in the present case is one of 3 years, Miss Herbert submitted that there is nothing to justify an aggravation of the starting point in that the amount taken in this case was not high, the burglary was not particularly sophisticated nor was it targeted at vulnerable members of society (such as the elderly). There was a single offender only and the defendant is by no means a career burglar.

11.Ms Herbert further indicated that the defendant wishes to pay compensation to Miss Hou for the loss to her which was estimated to be $3,500. His family members would attend court to make arrangement for payment, and Miss Herbert asked the court to take this into account as a consideration in mitigation of his sentence.

12.As to who to pay for the compensation, I am told that the defendant’s daughter, now in court, has a job in an office earning $10,000 a month and would like to pay on her father’s behalf. In the circumstances, I order the defendant to pay forthwith a sum of $3,500 as compensation to Miss Hou (A receipt from the shroff office has been shown to me as proof of the payment).

13.Given the facts of the case, I would adopt the usual starting point, i.e., 36 months, and deduct one-third for his timely plea, the starting point is therefore reduced to 24 months. Taking into account the fact that Miss Hou has been compensated, I further reduce the term by two weeks.

14.There being no reasons for further reduction in sentence, the defendant is sentenced to 23 months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment.