HKSAR v. Bilal Muhammad
|
DCCC586/2009 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 586 OF 2009 ________________________
________________________
---------------------------- Reasons for Sentence ---------------------------- 1.Defendant, Muhummad Bilal, pleaded guilty before me to seven charges, four of them theft; three are falsely pretending to be a police officer. 2.There are four incidents in the case. The first incident occurred on 19 October 2008. The prosecution case was that you knew someone who worked in the petrol station. You went there, and at some stage you were seen fumbling about the drawer at the cashier counter in the convenience store of the petrol station. The staff member who worked there saw that and challenged you why you stole from her. Upon interrupted, you then left. She checked the till and found $500 in the form of 5 $100 banknotes missing. A report was made to the police. You were arrested for the theft in the first incident on 3 December 2008. You were released on police bail and supposed to go back to the police station for answering your bail on 2 March 2009, but you failed to do that. 3.After the first incident, on 2 February 2009,4 February 2009 and 17 March 2009, on these three days, you committed further theft, in which you pretended to be a police officer. You stopped the victims either in the street or in a building or getting into their room. You had the construction industry safety training card with you to flash as the police warrant, and you also carried a toy pistol to make it look like you had the sidearm of a police officer. You asked the victims to hand over their belongings for a search by you. In the course of it, you stole their valuables and cash. 4.You are currently serving a sentence of 24 months for the offence of burglary and failing to surrender to custody. The sentence was handed down on 6 May 2009, and I had the opportunity to look at the case file. The date of offence for the burglary was on 24 October 2008. For the absconding charge, the date of offence was 3 March 2009. But for the present purpose, I would treat you as a person of clean record. 5.In mitigation, the court was told that you were born in Pakistan, came to Hong Kong at the age of 11. You had Primary 3 education back in Pakistan. You continued your study here for seven years and finished Form 1, and then you left school. You took up various jobs to earn pocket money, mainly casual decoration work. In year 2007, you got your driving licence and worked as a van driver. 6.The court was told that at the end of 2004, you met some undesirable friends and started taking heroin. You were once sentenced to DATC for the drug offence, but the conviction was not recorded. Your counsel said the reason for your present offence was your drug problem; you were deeply addicted to drugs; and you needed money to finance your drug habit. Counsel said you have now recovered and are no longer relying on drugs and you have determined to turn over a new leaf. Counsel also said none of the offences you committed involved violence and you cooperated fully with the police. 7.For the first incident, you went to the petrol station to steal money. The facts are serious, close to the facts of burglary. You went into the till area to steal the money there. I am sure that part of the petrol station was exclusive for the staff member. You were trespassing. But I must make it clear that I will not rely on the sentencing guidelines for burglary to sentence you, and I just want to point out the seriousness of the facts. 8.For the other incidents, what it boils down to is a deception case. You were not a police officer, but you really dressed that part. You had the construction industry safety-training card with you to flash as a warrant card. You even had a toy pistol. Most people are easy prey to this. And it works in this case. Three victims swallowed the bait. Had it not been for the arrest of you by the police, I believe that you would have continued to cheat other people. In my view, you are a danger to society. You should be put away as long as the law allows. 9.Regarding mitigation, apart from your guilty plea, I do not see any other mitigating factors of real substance. For the theft, the four thefts in this case, I take 18 months as a starting point, reduced to 12 to reflect your plea. For each of the theft, you are sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. For the three pretending charges, the maximum is 6 months’ imprisonment. I take 3 months and reduce to 2 to reflect your plea. So you are sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment for each of the pretending charges. 10.For each of the theft, they are separate and distinct. They involved different places and different timesand different victims. In principle, the term should run consecutive to each other, but in view of the totality principle, I order that the term of Charge 1 be consecutive to 6 months of Charge 2 and consecutive to 6 months of Charge 4 and consecutive to 6 months of Charge 6. And the rest are concurrent, including Charges 3, 5 and 7. The total term is one of 30 months’ imprisonment. 11.You are now serving 24 months’ imprisonment of an offence, which is separate and distinct from the offences of this case. Again, in principle, they should be in consecutive terms, but I order that 24 months of these 30 months’ term be consecutive to your existing term, the rest concurrent, in other words, two years added on top of your existing term.
|