HKSAR v. Velappan Praneeshan
|
DCCC 883/2023 [2024] HKDC 414 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 883 OF 2023 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ Background 1.The Defendant pleads guilty for the charge of Burglary that on the 5th day of June 2023, in Hong Kong, he entered as a trespasser part of a building known as “Hotal Colombo”, Ground Floor, No 31 Elgin Street, Central (the “Restaurant”), with intent to steal therein. 2.The Defendant confirms and admits that on the day in question, at round 5:34 am, he prized open the back door of the Restaurant, entered into it and covered the CCTV that was installed inside the Restaurant, then left. Shortly after, at about 5:37 am, he went back into the Restaurant, carrying with him a big black plastic bag (the “Bag”). He pulled the Bag over himself, took off his shoes and then started walking around inside by holding a long object. At about 5:38 am, he rummaged through the lower compartments of the cabinet, which stored the cash register along the corridor of the Restaurant. At about 5:46 am, he went back to the back door, put on his shoes and left the Restaurant. 3.Later, the Defendant was arrested. Under caution, he said: “Sir, yesterday, I got inside Hotal Colombo, but I didn’t steal anything.” He also admitted, inter alia, that he was angry with the chef of the Restaurant. He once worked at the Restaurant for about 5 years. He did break into the Restaurant through the back door in the early hours of 5 June 2023. He used an object he picked up from a nearby construction site to damage the back door. Starting point 4.Numerous authorities show that in the absence of any aggravating or mitigating factor, the starting point for sentencing a person who committed a charge of burglary inside a non-domestic premises is a 30 months’ imprisonment. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors 5.The Defendant frankly admitted his guilt; he will have one-third discount on his sentence. 6.According to the mitigation that is submitted by the Defence Counsel, Mr Jeremy Cheung, that the Defendant has a clear record; that he committed this offence because he harboured rage towards one of his former colleague coupled with the influence of alcohol; that he regretted for what he had done. 7.Other than the Defendant pleads guilty, I do not find any aggravating or mitigating factor. 8.I sentence the Defendant 20 months’ imprisonment after a one-third discount is made. Conclusion 9.The Defendant is sentenced for 20 months’ imprisonment.
|