HKSAR v. Pun Yuk Bahadur

DCCC 1095/2022

[2023] HKDC 1356

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1095 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Burglary". He burgled a grocery store situated at Castle Peak Road in Yuen Long. He stole a recycle bag containing a brand named wallet which contained some cards and $5,000 cash.

Summary of Facts

2.The burgled premises ("the Shop")  were situated at Shop C, Golden Hall Building, Nos.49-63 Castle Peak Road, Yuen Long.  The Shop is a 2-storey grocery store, which had a room on the upper floor designated for its staff ("the Staff Room").  A "Staff Only No Entry" sign was affixed on the door of the Staff Room.

3.About 8:40 a.m. on 27 July 2022, Madam Wong (PW1), manager of the Shop, put a white recycle bag (SP1)  on top of a carton box in the Staff Room.  SP1 contained a black Gucci brand wallet (SP2; valued at $3,000), which contained a Hong Kong Identity Card (SP3), a Home Return Permit (SP4), a Hang Seng Bank ATM card (SP5), a Hang Seng Bank credit card (SP6), 2 adult Octopus Cards with zero stored value (collectively SP7)  and $5,000 cash (SP8).  SP1 to SP8 all belonged to PW1.

4.About 12:45 p.m. on the same day, PW1 found SP1 to SP8 missing.  Based on CCTV footage, an unknown male with a tattoo on his left forearm was seen entering the Staff Room and taking away SP1 to SP8 between 9:17 and 9:18 a.m. that day.

5.About 4:23 p.m. on 28 July 2022, PC 23747 intercepted the defendant at Yuen Long On Ning Road.  At the time of arrest, the defendant had a tattoo on his left forearm. Under caution, he admitted stealing SP1 to SP8 out of greed.  He claimed that he had spent part of the cash, with $1,796.80 remaining.

6.In his video recorded interview, the defendant admitted that he saw the door of the Staff Room left ajar with no one inside.  He entered the Staff Room and took SP1 with him.  He kept the $5,000 cash and threw away SP1 to SP7 somewhere in Yuen Long.  He confirmed that the person captured in the CCTV footage of the Staff Room was him.

Mitigation & Sentence

7.The defendant is 50 and has 39 conviction records, which included 28 "Theft" offences. Defence counsel Mr. Yu informed me that the defendant is single. He was born in Hong Kong. He moved to Nepal with his parents in 1975 and returned in 1994. His parents are retired and have moved to the United Kingdom. At the time of the present offence, the defendant was unemployed.

8.In mitigation, Mr. Yu submitted that the present offence is an "opportunistic burglary". The defendant was a "sneak thief" rather than a typical burglar. He committed the offence out of greed. No tools were used and no one was alarmed by his presence.

9.The defendant's criminal record is appalling, but I accept that he is a fresh offender in terms of "Burglary". On the other hand, he is no doubt a repeated offender of "Theft" offences. He was released from prison on 28 April 2022 after serving a 10-month sentence in relation to a "Theft" offence and a drug-related offence. In just 3 months, he committed the present offence.

10.The normal starting point for non-domestic burglary is 2.5 years' imprisonment. Although no breaking-in by force was involved, the Staff Room door being left open did not in any way serve as an invitation for the defendant to go in there to steal. Also, by throwing away PW1's identity documents and bank cards, he has caused extra inconvenience, if not hardship, to PW1.

11.Having balanced all factors, I have decided not to raise or lower the starting point. I will adopt the usual starting point of 2.5 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 20 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 20 months' imprisonment.