HKSAR v. Wong Chun Pan Julian

DCCC 24/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 24 OF 2016

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty before me to one count of burglary, the premises in question are dwellings- a unit in a public housing estate, and the items stolen are a notebook computer, a pair of glasses, and dozens of photographs, all belonging to the female occupier of the unit, Miss Hung, who was a co-worker of the defendant at Mannings.

2.This is a rather odd case, but at first glance, it bears the usual features of an ordinary burglary which, in the absence of the oddity which I will talk about later on, would attract a 3-year imprisonment term. Worse still, as the evidence shows that it was a premeditated burglary in that the defendant had on an earlier occasion at the workplace stolen from Miss Hung’s handbag the key to the unit and had it duplicated. 

3.On the day of offence, the defendant used the duplicate key to gain entry to Miss Hung’s residence at a time when she was gone away to work and stole the items as aforesaid. He first threw away the glasses and the photographs, and then wandered aimlessly around the streets with the computer.

4.On her way home after work that evening, Miss Hung received a call from the defendant asking if her computer was missing. When she finally got home and discovered the missing of these items, she called the defendant, who was at the time lingering in the park near where she lived. He told her a made-up story that he saw a man leaving her residence earlier on with a computer,  he followed the man to an unknown place where the man stabbed him causing injuries to his left shoulder (In fact, it was he himself who slashed his left shoulder with a knife).

5.Upon being questioned by the police officers who stopped him in the park on suspicion, the defendant stuck to the same story initially but soon admitted that he made it all up and that he was there in fact hoping to return the computer to Miss Hung after telling the officers the truth of what really happened.

6.Having heard the mitigation put forward by Defence Counsel, I am of the view that there exist extenuating circumstances which would justify a departure from the sentencing guidelines as set down by the higher court. The case was adjourned for the preparation of a CSO as well as a psychologist’s report.

7.The two, Miss Hung and defendant, were not simply co-workers; they were dating couple at least from the point of view of the defendant. They had spent time together when they were off work, but there came a time when Miss Hung suddenly told defendant that they should stop seeing each other anymore.

8.This came as a terrible blow to him; the defendant was ill-equipped, as counsel puts it, to handle a matter like this because of his different cultural background and apparent lack of experience in dating.

9.This was the first time the defendant entered into a relationship with a girl since his return to Hong Kong a few years ago after having spent almost his entire life in Costa Rica. He went to Costa Rica at the age of 2 and came back after graduating from university there with a degree in Commerce. 

10.Mr. Chan, the psychologist, tells the court that :

“…………………..the defendant’s perceived withdrawal and rejection from Miss Hung (the female co-worker), without knowing what led to such deterioration of relationship, was an excessively strong blow to him, triggering very intense and negative mixed feelings in him. Being under the impact of such strong negative emotions, he might have a lapse of personal control and sound judgment (which he normally possessed) and he had committed the offending acts which seemed strange at first sight to any outsiders………….. ”

11.Mr. Chan goes on to say, “…..While the present evaluation found no signs indicative of the defendant having any long-standing and deep-rooted psychopathology, and I think that the present experience of being arrested might have given him a bitter lesson and served as a deterrent for recidivism………..   ”

12.There is something out of the ordinary in the instant case. On the evidence before the court, judging from the things he took, i.e., the photos and the glasses, and his readiness of returning the computer to its owner after its loss, which clearly shows that money was not what the defendant was really after.  

13.Coupled with the fact that he made up a rather clumsy heroic story, it seems to me that all that he was doing was to try to salvage his relationship with Miss Hung- perhaps hoping to win her love back by playing a hero who snatched back her stolen computer from the thief in the nick of time and sustained injuries in the course of doing it, and he must have known by now this didn’t work in Hong Kong.

14.On the information before the court, I agree that it is unlikely that he will re-offend in the future.   In the CSO report, it’s said that “out of recklessness, ignorance and impulsiveness, the Accused committed the present offence. Being a fresh offender with willingness to perform unpaid service, his better insight, motivation to change, genuine repentance and good family support, it is considered worthwhile to give the Accused a chance to repent his misdeed by performing unpaid community service. In this regards, the Accused is assessed to be a suitable candidate to be placed on a community service order. “

15.One may disagree with what the defendant did, but he is not a thief in the real sense of the word. Certainly he exhibited improper dating behavior- he handled the breakup in a miserable way, but sending him to prison is a measure disproportionately taken which, in my view, is not just.

16.For the reasons given above, with his consent, I order the defendant to do unpaid community services work for 240 hours, which is to be completed within a period of one year; and he is also warned of the consequences of not complying with the Order.