HKSAR v. Gadara Jaspal Singh

DCCC 688/2024

[2025] HKDC 1156

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 688 OF 2024

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Theft" (Charge 1) and a charge of "Burglary" (Charge 2). He stole a cell phone from a laundromat and burgled a restaurant stealing $3,000 cash.

Summary of Facts

Charge 1

2.Madam Cheung (PW1) was an employee of a laundromat situated at G/F, No.21 Woosung Street, Yau Ma Tei ("the Shop").

3.About 6:00 p.m. on 9 January 2024, PW1 placed her iPhone on the desk counter of the Shop unattended and went about her work.  About 45 minutes later, she found her iPhone missing.  The Police was alerted.

4.CCTV footage of the Shop captured the defendant wandering around the desk counter at 6:44 p.m. on 9 January 2024.

Charge 2

5.Mr. Lo (PW2) was the manager of a fast food shop situated at G/F, No.159 Shanghai Street, Yau Ma Tei ("the Restaurant").

6.About 6:00 p.m. on 9 January 2024, PW2 locked up and left the Restaurant as usual.  There was cash in the sum of $3,000 placed in a locked drawer at the cashier.

7.PW2 returned to the Restaurant around 5:00 a.m. on 10 January 2024.  He found all the drawers having been opened with signs of ransacking.  The $3,000 cash was missing and the lock of the back door was damaged.  The Police was alerted.

8.CCTV footage of the Restaurant captured the defendant entering from the back door at 00:09:24 hours on 10 January 2024.  He then ransacked the cashier area.  He looked around in the Restaurant and left through the back door at 00:22:48 hours on the same day.

Arrest and admissions

9.In the afternoon on 10 January 2024, the Police arrested the defendant in Jordan.  At the police station, through an interpreter, regarding Charge 1, the defendant admitted under caution having taken the mobile phone from the desk counter since he thought no one needed it.  Regarding Charge 2, he admitted having burgled the Restaurant because he had just been released from prison and had no money.

Mitigation & Sentence

10.The defendant is 40 and has 9 conviction records, which included 8 "Burglary" offences and 3 "Theft" offences.  Defence counsel Mr. Marray informed me that the defendant came to Hong Kong from India in 1996 and became a permanent resident.  He is single and has a long-term girlfriend, who was a domestic helper in Hong Kong.  They have a daughter (aged 13).  The defendant's girlfriend and daughter reside in the Philippines.

11.In mitigation, Mr. Marray submitted that the root of the defendant's problems is his drug habit.  He is determined to quit drugs and has plans to go back to India after serving his sentence.  He intends to bring his girlfriend and daughter to India as well.  He will start afresh working at his family farm in Punjab and living a simple life.  His family (including his mother and brother) will help him stay away from drugs and alcohol.

12.Time after time, the court has expressed in very clear terms that being in financial difficulty (however serious) is no mitigating factor for committing a crime.

13.In the present case, the defendant acted alone.  He stole an unattended cell phone from a laundromat and burgled a restaurant within 2 days.  Furthermore, he was last released from prison on 7 November 2023.  In just 2 months, he started a new round of stealing.

Charge 1

14.According to HKSAR v Tse Kar Hang, Nigel[1], the starting point for stealing an unattended iPad or cell phone from a club house or a hotel reception desk is 18 months' imprisonment.  The defendant is a repeated offender of theft-related offences.  He also re-offended in just 2 months after being released from prison.  I would increase the starting point to 21 months.  With the timely guilty plea, I sentence him to 14 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 2

15.The normal starting point for non-domestic burglary is 2.5 years' imprisonment. The same aggravating factors mentioned in Charge 1 also exist in this charge. Hence, I will increase the starting point to 33 months. With the timely guilty plea, I sentence the defendant to 22 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Overall sentence

16.Both offences in the present case took place within 2 days. Bearing in mind the totality principle, I consider a global starting point of 42 months' imprisonment[2] appropriate and just. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence becomes 28 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. Hence, I order 6 months in Charge 1 to run consecutive to the sentence for Charge 2.