HKSAR v. Hossain Md-emran

Please refer to CACC279/2011 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.

Case No.DCCC 283/2011

Court

District Court

Date14 Jul 2011

Judge—

Case Document

100%

DCCC283/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 283 OF 2011

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

	HKSAR
	v.
	Hossain Md-Emran
----------------------

Before:

H H Judge Stanley Chan

Date:

14 July 2011 at 11.23 am

Present:

Ms Barbara Wong, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Jonathan Edward Acton Bond, instructed by J Chan Yip So & Partners, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant

Offence:

Burglary (入屋犯法罪)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant was convicted of one count of burglary after trial. I have just delivered the Reasons for Verdict and now it comes to the Reasons for Sentence.

2.The facts of the case are straightforward. In gist, the defendant was found dismantling the copper wire connection to the split type air-conditioners on the podium in a church building. He brought along the tools like cutter, pliers, plastic gloves etc. There was a wooden ladder near the podium. The value of the stolen property is meagre. The defendant was virtually caught red-handed.

Mitigation

3.The defendant, who came to Hong Kong from Bangladesh in 2006, is an asylum and torture claimant. He lived on appropriately $2,000 allowance from the government and other institutes per month. The defendant had not been in trouble over the years. As regards the present offence, the defendant did not break into the premises. What the defendant stole was some copper wire which did not worth much.

Sentence

4.The defendant is 34 years old and was born in Bangladesh. He came to Hong Kong in 2006 and now is an asylum seeker and torture claimant, hence a ‘Form 8’ holder. He lived on public allowances. He is married and his wife and son are living in Bangladesh.

5.The defendant was equipped when committing the present offence. I noted the stolen property is not of high value and that the defendant committed the offence not late at night. However, the defendant was caught red handed and he was convicted after trial.

6.The defendant cannot put forward any substantial mitigation at all. The defendant shows no remorsefulness.

7.It is established that for offence of burglary of non-domestic premise, the starting point is 2½ years. Accordingly, I sentence the defendant to 2½ years’ imprisonment.

(Stanley Chan)
District Judge

Please refer to CACC279/2011 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.