HKSAR v. Man Ka Cheon

DCCC 855/2018

[2019] HKDC 303

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 855 OF 2018

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.A thief posing as a customer asked to look at a Rolex watch worth slightly over $310,000 and ran out of the jewellery shop with it.  

2.The defendant, a 48-year-old British-born Chinese, is the thief in question who pleaded guilty before me to one count of theft.

3.On 1 August, 2018, the defendant went in the “Chow Tai Fook” jewellery shop in Millenium City, Kwun Tong and showed his interest in one of the Rolex watches there. In fact, he had been to the shop 5 times on the day, each time asked to look at the same watch, and eventually ran out of the shop with it.

4.He didn’t go far before being caught up by the shop assistant and other passers-by, and the stolen watch worth $311,700 was recovered.  He told the police in the subsequent interview that he wanted to resell the watch because he had no money; he picked this particular watch because it was the most expensive one; the reason why he went there 5 times because he had to check on the route to make good his escape.  

5.The defendant was England born and bred. He obtained a National Certificate in Electrical Engineering and had worked as a technical apprentice for about a year before he changed to work in a Chinese restaurant. 

6.In mid-2003, he moved to Hong Kong settling down here and was able to find work in a big construction company as a safety supervisor. Unfortunately, he was made redundant in 2008 because of the financial crisis, but he managed to ride the storm out by working for smaller sized construction companies, counsel said. In 2017, he was laid off again, but this time he could not find work anymore.    

7.The defendant is a married man with two young daughters, aged 5 and 3. He is the sole bread winner of the family and had been a law-abiding citizen up until the present offence, notwithstanding some violations of traffic offences in 2018 (driving whilst disqualified and without insurance for which he was dealt with by way of fine).

8.The defendant committed the offence for economic reasons for he was out of job at the time of the offence.  Counsel said the defendant felt stress and depressed as he was in dire financial straits, and all that in his mind at the time was how to get the money to feed the family, the commission of the present was completely out of character. 

9.In his letter to the court, the defendant expressed remorse for what he had done, the agonies of missing his family and not being able to feed them, and said that he had learned a lesson in the hard way. He promised not to commit any offence in the future.

10.There are also letter from a priest pleading leniency on his behalf and some drawings from his daughters.

11.Counsel emphasized that the defendant is not a professional thief; the watch had been recovered and the victim suffered no loss; the plan involved no sophistication. Based on all this, counsel asked for a suspended sentence or a community service order in view of the fact that the defendant had been in custody for over 7 months (ever since he was arrested).

12.First of all, I do not think the facts of the case justify a non-custodial sentence or a suspension of the sentence. Clearly the defendant was targeting expensive merchandises, in this case a Rolex watch worth over $311,000; if he had got away with it, that would represent substantial losses to the victim. And it was premeditated, he must have carefully thought out beforehand for he had been to the shop five times to check on the escape route.

13.To be fair to the defendant, this is not one of the worst cases of theft. I could accept that the defendant is not a professional thief, the case involved no sophisticated skills like sleight of hands or anything like that.

14.Given the facts of the case, and taking into account all the positive features in mitigation, I take 27 months as starting point; by reason of his timely plea, the starting point is reduced by 1/3 to 18 months.  There being nothing to justify a further reduction in sentence, the defendant is therefore sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.