HKSAR v. Rospeni

DCCC 867/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 867 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2.Defendant had been employed as a domestic helper by Ms Cheung at 22nd floor, Century Tower II, Tregunter Path, Central, Hong Kong, since March 2014.  On her last day of employment, 28 June 2016, Cheung’s personal assistant inspected the defendant’s luggage and found therein one red handbag containing multiple pieces of jewellery.  The jewellery were wrapped in tissue paper and placed inside 3 pouches.  There were also 7 recycle bags containing 2 handbags and 3 pairs of shoes.  The above items were suspected belonging to Cheung, defendant was questioned about it whom admitted that she had stolen from Cheung as she was poor.

3.Defendant was arrested.  Under caution, with the assistance of an Indonesian interpreter, she admitted that she had stolen from Cheung.

4.In the video-recorded interview, defendant further admitted under caution that she had stolen 3 handbags, 2 transparent stones, 6 rings, 5 bracelets, 3 pairs of earrings, 4 necklaces, some pendants and 3 pairs of shoes belonging to her employer Cheung, and she had stolen the items from Cheung’s bedroom, bathroom and the living room in the flat between February and March 2016.

5.The stolen items were estimated to be worth about a total of more than $560,000.

6.Defendant, aged 30, clear record, an Indonesian. 

7.Mr Yeung submits that the defendant had been working about 2 years before committing the present offence between February to March 2016 whereupon defendant did not plan nor break open anything to steal as the properties were just spreading around the flat.

8.Mr Yeung further submits that defendant’s brother had recently got into a traffic accident and a loan of more than $40,000 was made, but defendant only earned about 4,000 per month. Defendant came from a poor family and had great financial difficulties to repay and that was the reason why she stole the properties from her employer.

9.Defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and had confessed everything to the police. All stolen properties were recovered and defendant pleaded for a lenient sentence.

10.Theft is a serious offence.   The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 76 and HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing CACC 398/2007 has laid down the guideline involving breach of trust case, where 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment shall be imposed concerning amount between $250,000 to 1 million.

11.In the present case, the total amount was estimated about $560,000.  There were altogether more than 20 items stolen including jewellery.  The facts were serious.

12.After consideration, I shall adopt a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment.  Upon her guilty plea thus saving the court’s costs and time, the sentence be further reduced to 18 months.  Therefore, defendant is sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for the present offence.