HKSAR v. Rai Kamal

DCCC 370/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 370 OF 2014

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant, Rai Kamal, pleaded guilty before me to two counts of “Theft”. Charge 1 concerned five pairs of trousers stolen by the defendant on 16 February 2014. Charge 2 concerned a jacket stolen by the defendant on 19 February 2014.

2.At around 4.48 pm on 16 February 2014, a salesman at “Tommy Hilfiger” at Mira Mall, Nathan Road, saw the defendant take a stack of trousers inside the shop near its entrance and left the shop.  The salesman then chased after the defendant.  He saw the defendant put the trousers into his backpack.  The salesman tried to intercept the defendant, but the defendant put up a struggle and escaped.

3.However, the defendant left behind his backpack.  A Hong Kong Identity Card with the defendant’s name, a construction workers’ registration card with the defendant’s name and five pairs of trousers were found in the defendant’s backpack.

4.The said five pairs of trousers were property of Dickson Trading (Asia) Company Limited, the operator of the shop in question.  The stolen properties had a value of $5,450. 

5.As for Charge 2, at around 10.45 pm on 19 February 2014, the assistant manager of “Burberry” Shop at Silvercord, Canton Road, conducted a stock-take and discovered a jacket missing from its display rack.  Upon reviewing the CCTV footage of the shop, the assistant manager discovered a male wearing a cap and carrying a backpack loitering outside the shop entered the shop, took away the jacket and left the shop at around 7.45 on that day.

6.The said jacket was the property of Burberry Asia Limited, the operator of the “Burberry” Shop in question.  The jacket was made of leather, made up of crocodile skin and valued at $900,000. 

7.The defendant was intercepted by a police officer on 21 February 2014. 

8.Under caution, the defendant admitted committing Charge 2 and he admitted that he sold the jacket to an Indian at a shop at Chung King Mansion.  He admitted he sold the stolen jacket for $2,000.  He said he committed the offence as he had lost his identity card and had no money.

9.He also admitted committing Charge 1 under caution and he claimed he had thrown away the stolen trousers in the shopping mall as he was chased by a staff member. 

10.With the information provided by the defendant, the jacket was recovered from a flowerbed in Tsim Sha Tsui.

11.The properties involved for Charge 1 and 2 had a total value of $905,450.

12.The criminal record of the defendant shows that he had a total of 17 previous convictions recorded against him.  He had 16 previous convictions for theft.

13.Mr Dunn in mitigation told me that the defendant is now 37 years of age, he was born in Hong Kong, a divorced man who worked on a casual basis on construction sites making on average $5,000 per month.  He was unemployed, however, at the time of the offences.  He lived in Temple Street before his remand.  He had received primary education. 

14.Mr Dunn submitted that the defendant had a long record and he had been to DATC which shows that he had a drug problem.  Because of his drug addiction, the defendant could only work part-time and he would turn to stealing when he ran out of food or money.

15.Mr Dunn told me the defendant was unaware of the value of the leather jacket.  The jacket did not have a price tag attached to it and it was not fit with any security tag.  The defendant sold the jacket to a person in Chung King Mansion.  He had fully co-operated with the police and had provided all the information he had about that person to the police.  Mr Dunn urged me to be as lenient to the defendant as possible.

16.In sentencing the defendant, I have borne in mind the facts of this case, the background information of the defendant and all the matters urged on the defendant’s behalf by Mr Dunn today.

17.The criminal record of the defendant shows that he is a recidivist.  It seems that the sentences passed on the defendant in the past had little deterrent effect on him.

18.In the present case, the facts show that the defendant targeted at high-end fashion shops.  Mr Dunn submitted that the defendant did not know the value of the leather jacket in question.  He did not know that it was worth $900,000.  But the fact that the jacket was made up of crocodile skin and the fact that the defendant was able to sell it for $2,000 show that the defendant must realise the jacket was a valuable item.

19.On the facts before me, for Charge 1, a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment is appropriate. The defendant, as said, is a recidivist.  His criminal record is appalling.  The record of the defendant calls for a higher starting point.  I have come to the conclusion that a starting point of 15 months is appropriate for Charge 1 and I take that as the starting point.

20.The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and is entitled to the customary one-third reduction for his guilty plea.  That would bring his sentence down to 10 months’ imprisonment.

21.For the reasons given on Charge 1, I sentence the defendant to 10 months’ imprisonment.

22.On Charge 2, a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.  Again, the appalling record of the defendant calls for a higher starting point.  In my judgment, a starting point of 21 months is appropriate. 

23.The defendant should be given one-third reduction for his guilty plea.  That would bring his sentence down to 14 months’ imprisonment.

24.For the reasons given on Charge 2, I sentence the defendant to 14 months’ imprisonment

25.I bear in mind the totality principle.  The defendant committed Charge 1 on 16 February 2014.  He committed Charge 2 three days after he had committed Charge 1.  In my judgment, Charge 1 and Charge 2 call for a partly consecutive term of imprisonment.  In my judgment, a total term of 18 months’ imprisonment should adequately reflect the overall criminality of this case.  To achieve that end, I order 4 months of the sentence for Charge 1 shall run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 2.