HKSAR v. Muhammad Bilal

DCCC 137/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 137 OF 2009

----------------------

----------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The Defendant, Muhammad Bilal, was arrested on 24 October, 2008 by the police after he was found to have sold a bundle of copper pipes which he have earlier stolen from an unsecured construction site at Tai Kok Tsui, Kowloon to the owner of a metal store for HK$800.

2.He was charged with the offence of Burglary and on 12 February 2009 he appeared in the Kwun Tong Magistracy where he was granted court bail to appear in the District Court on 3 March 2009.

3.The Defendant failed to answer bail on 3 March 2009 and a warrant was issued for his arrest. The Defendant was re-arrested on 19 March 2009. In addition to the original charge of Burglary (1st charge), the Defendant further faced a charge of failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause (2nd charge).

4.The Defendant appeared before me in the District Court this afternoon on the two charges. He pleaded guilty to both charges and admitted the summary of facts which were simple and straightforward.

5.The Defendant was convicted of both charges accordingly.

6.The Defendant was once sentenced to the DATC for the offence of possession of DD in 2006 but his conviction was ordered to be not recorded. In mitigation, I was told that the Defendant was born in Pakistan and he moved to settle in Hong Kong with his family when he was 10.  He went to school in Hong Kong until he was 16 and afterwards, he took up some casual jobs before he obtained a driving license. He then became a lorry driver. Due to some bad influence of his peers, he was addicted to drugs in 2006 and he managed to stay away from it after he was discharged from the DATC for almost one year. In 2008, due to his weakness and the lack of self-control, he was addicted again which, according to his lawyer, was the main reason why he committed the present offences.

7.For the 1st charge of burglary, according to the sentencing guidelines, I adopted a starting point of 2 1/2 years and reduced it by a full one-third to 20 months' imprisonment on account of the fact that the construction site concerned was a non-residential premises.

8.For the 2nd charge of failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause, under s. 9L(3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221, the maximum sentence for an offence of failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause is 12 months' imprisonment on conviction upon indictment. The Defendant was re-arrested by the police in connection with his involvement in some other cases after 16 days. According to his lawyer, he did not want to be incarcerated once he indicated his intention to plead guilty in the District Court. In the previous hearing in the District Court, however, the Defendant suggested that he absconded because he mixed up the dates with the other court cases. In either case, this is not a valid excuse.

9.I am of the view that a starting point of 6 months' imprisonment for the 2nd charge of failing to surrender to custody without reasonable cause is appropriate. There should be a customary reduction of one-third to 4 months' imprisonment on account of the guilty plea. The sentences on both charges should run consecutively.

10.The total sentence should be one of 24 months' imprisonment.