HKSAR v. Rajpal

DCCC 178/2021

[2021] HKDC 1447

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 178 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.In this case, the defendant is convicted after trial of the alternative charge of criminal damage, contrary to section 60(1)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.

2.I found the defendant had broken the door of his neighbour and that there was some ransacking inside that room.  I did not make any finding as to whether the defendant was personally responsible for the ransacking.  I did not find whether the defendant had intended to steal.

3.I accepted that the defendant was a habitual drunkard, but in this instance his inebriation was no excuse for breaking into a neighbour’s door, especially when the premises in question was a small one.  The rooms were small; the units were small; they were divided into even smaller units so that the landlord could collect more money by renting them out each at a lower rate.  But however small the rooms are, they were homes of other people.  What the defendant did was breaking them open, as a result he or somebody else could have access to the contents inside.  It is something akin to breaking into private premises with intent to steal which normally warrants a sentence order of 3 years. 

4.I did not find the defendant had the intent to steal.  He broke the door and allowed himself or others have the chance of going through the contents. So the starting point would be lower. 

5.I also noted the defendant had been living in Hong Kong on what is called a Form 8, meaning that he was a torture claimant asking for residence in another place on the basis of either the political condition or some other factors in his home country.  He had been living on the charity of the Hong Kong Government and the international organisations.  I will not hold that against the defendant.  As a more affluent society, I think we have a duty to assist people in need. 

6.However, the defendant did not waste his time in his stay in Hong Kong since 2007.

7.After he came to Hong Kong in 2007, I was informed that he had been taken to court at least seven times involving a multitude of charges.  The ones relevant are the two criminal-damage charges in 2016, one criminal-damage charge in 2017, and there were a number of other charges involving forging the Hong Kong ID card, assaulting, using a forged Hong Kong ID card.  His previous record certainly did him no service, especially when he had similar previous records. 

8.So taking in all the circumstances as a whole, I will adopt a sentence order of 24 months to take effect immediately.