HKSAR v. Lo Ng Mui

DCCC 241/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 241 OF 2017

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Burglary". She burgled a residential unit, at which she did renovation work, and stole 10 odd pieces of household electrical appliance.

Summary of Facts

2.In September 2016, Madam WONG (PW1) engaged the defendant to refurbish her new home situated at Block 6, Po Tin Estate in Tuen Mun ("the Flat"). PW1 gave the defendant keys to the metal gate and wooden door of the Flat.  PW1 moved into the Flat in November 2016.

3.On 4 November 2016, PW1 changed the locks of the metal gate and wooden door of the Flat. She did not give the new keys to the defendant.  In the evening on 6 December, PW1 left Hong Kong for a month.

4.On 17 December 2016, PW2 Madam HUANG (PW1's niece) visited Hong Kong and stayed at the Flat.  She communicated with PW1 through WeChat on the following day. During their communication, PW2 took photos of the Flat and showed them to PW1.  PW1 discovered that many household electrical appliances were missing from the Flat.  At PW1's request, PW2 alerted the Police.

5.PW1 returned to Hong Kong on 18 January 2017.  She confirmed that the properties particularized in the Charge (valued at $17,360 in total) went missing.

6.CCTV footage of Block 6 captured the defendant carrying a wooden ladder and an electric drill in the lift around 12:50 a.m. on 7 December 2016 and leaving the building.

7.The defendant was intercepted by the Police on 26 January 2017 in Tuen Mun.  Under caution, she admitted that she went to the Flat around midnight on 7 December 2016 to take away the wooden ladder and the electric drill.  She claimed that on 5 December 2016, she duplicated the keys to the Flat after the renovation was completed.  A few days after 7 December, she entered the Flat to steal PW1's electrical appliances as compensation because PW1 owed her renovation fees. The defendant sold the electrical appliances to an unknown person and spent all the money.

8.The defendant's home was searched.  An electric drill, a hair curler, a therapy machine and a bag of cosmetic products were found.

9.In her video recorded interview, the defendant made similar admissions.  She claimed that PW1 asked her to refurbish the Flat at an agreed fee of $800, and it would take 1 week to complete the works.  It took 2 months at the end and PW1 still owes her $300.  She admitted having stolen a television set, an electric heater, an air purifier, a notebook computer, an electric drill, a bread maker, a green rice cooker and a blender from the Flat without PW1's consent.  She claimed that PW1 agreed to give her the therapy machine, the Medic rice cooker and the cosmetic products as payment of her fees.

10.PW1 does not accept the defendant's claim that she owes the defendant any money or she having agreed to give the defendant the cosmetic products or any electrical appliances.

Mitigation & Sentence

11.The defendant is 45 and has a clear record. Defence solicitor Mr. IP informed me that after her divorce in 2010, the defendant began to suffer from psychiatric problems. A letter from Dr. Joyce HEUNG of Castle Peak Hospital was placed before me; it states that the defendant suffers from Adjustment Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder, for which she is prescribed with antidepressants.

12.In mitigation, Mr. IP submitted that the defendant was merely helping her friend PW1, who admired the interior of the defendant's home. Mr. IP invited me to call for pre-sentencing reports. I do not see the need to do so since there is no indication that the defendant requires in-patient treatment or that her psychiatric conditions contributed to the commission of the present offence.

13.Even if PW1 did owe her renovation fees, there were lawful means for the defendant to recover the outstanding sum from PW1. The defendant has committed a breach of trust by duplicating the keys to the Flat with a view to stealing PW1's properties.

14.The normal starting point for domestic burglary is 3 years' imprisonment. But for the defendant's psychiatric conditions and family circumstances, I would have increased the starting point to reflect the breach of trust element. I would still adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment. With the guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 2 years. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 2 years' imprisonment. I invite the Commissioner of Correctional Services to arrange for the defendant to receive the necessary psychiatric treatment.