HKSAR v. Sukhbir Singh

Please refer to CACC302/2012 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.

Case No.DCCC 335/2012

Court

District Court

Date12 Jul 2012

Judge—

Case Document

100%

DCCC335/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 335 OF 2012

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

	HKSAR
	v.
	Sukhbir Singh
----------------------

Before:

H H Judge S. D’Almada Remedios

Date:

12 July 2012 at 10.27 am

Present:

Ms Janice Cheuk, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Trevor Beel, instructed by Herman H M Hui & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant

Offence:

Burglary (入屋犯法罪)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant, I convicted you after trial of an offence of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance.

2.I found that you had burgled a flat known as Room A, Flat A, 1st Floor, No.33 Ha Heung Road, To Kwa Wan, Kowloon, and stole a mobile phone and one gold ring on 9 January 2012.

3.The tenant of the flat, Madam Wong, had left home on the morning of 9 January and returned home that evening at

9.30 pm after work to find the front door open and signs of ransacking and her mobile phone and gold ring missing. She immediately made a report to the police.

4.They arrived at the flat shortly after and lifted fingerprints. Your right fore index fingerprint was lifted from one of the drawers of a cabinet in Madam Wong’s living room.

5.I concluded on the evidence that as your fingerprint was found inside the drawer of her flat when she did not know you and had not granted you any permission to enter her flat, that it was proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt that it was you who had committed the burglary.

6.Mr Beel, your counsel, has mitigated fully and thoroughly on your behalf.

7.You are 33 years of age and are of Indian nationality. You had come to Hong Kong in 1999 and hold a HKID card. You are married and have a 4-year-old son. You had previously worked as a delivery driver for an Indian provisional store earning $400 per day. You are of clear record.

8.I accept Mr Beel’s submissions that there are no aggravating factors in this burglary and accept that there are no factors by which the normal starting point for burglary can be lowered.

9.Defendant, this was a burglary of a domestic premises, where Madam Wong and her son lived. There are clear guidelines and tariffs laid down by the Court of Appeal that for this type of burglary. The starting point is one of 3 years’ imprisonment.

10.As there are no factors which detract from that starting point, defendant, you are sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment.

(S. D’Almada Remedios)
District Judge

Please refer to CACC302/2012 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.

Related Cases

Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first