HKSAR v. Heni Rohayati

DCCC 875/2019

[2020] HKDC 341

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 875 OF 2019

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant is a foreign domestic helper from Indonesia, who has pleaded guilty to one offence of theft from her employer. She has admitted stealing various items of jewellery and some cash from her employer. The offence was committed between August and September 2019. The defendant has admitted the offence.

2.Property that was pawned for a total of HK$5,700 was recovered from a pawn shop.  The total value of the items stolen is given as HK$408,606, of which items to the value of $147,700 were recovered.  That is about one-third of the total.

3.The details of how the offence was investigated and the property recovered can be seen from the summary of facts.  I do not propose to rehearse the facts here.  I will proceed straight to sentence.

4.The defendant is a lady of clear record.  She is aged 36.  She has been a foreign domestic helper since 2012, working for the victim since August 2013.  She has worked for her employer for some at least six years. 

5.Her employer has written to the court, asking me to treat the defendant leniently.  She speaks highly of the defendant.  She acknowledges the crime was committed as a result of the defendant falling short of money and demands being made of her from her family in Indonesia.  She references the defendant’s parents and children.

6.The defendant is, as I understand, the sole breadwinner of her family.  She is divorced.  The items were stolen and pawned to obtain cash to send home to support the parents and children and to cover medical and other expenses.  I have details of -- some of the expenses that have been incurred have been put before the court. 

7.As I have indicated, the defendant’s employer has forgiven her and written to the court asking for leniency.  I understand she has also visited her whilst in custody.

8.The theft in this case is a theft from an employer and that involves a breach of trust.  These particular kinds of thefts are taken seriously and sentences of imprisonment are routinely passed for offences of that nature.

9.Offences involving breach of trust are dealt with by way of guideline sentencing, which sets out a bracket for sentencing that is broadly determined by the amount of money that has been or the value of the goods that have been stolen. 

10.In this case, the starting point for sentence lies in the bracket of 250,000 to 1 million, which is a starting point of between 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment.  By a simple calculation in respect of this case, it would put the starting point for sentence in the region of 26 to 27 months’ imprisonment.  There would also normally be a discount of one-third for the defendant’s plea of guilty.

11.In this case, I have determined that the appropriate starting point for sentence should be one of 26 months’ imprisonment.

12.From that sentence, I will deduct 2 months to reflect the fact that about a third of the value of the goods were recovered and the defendant helped in that exercise.

13.That now leaves a starting point for sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment.

14.After deduction for one-third, that would lead to a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment.

15.I will in fact deduct a further month’s imprisonment to reflect the fact the defendant has been imprisoned during a time of unprecedented hardship here and in Indonesia.  She must be worried about both her parents and her children.  And so the final sentence of the court will be one of 15 months’ imprisonment.

16.There will also be a compensation order of $560 to the...

(Discussion re recipient)

17....to PW1, $560.  That can be taken from the money in the exhibits.  Otherwise, I assume I make an order in terms in respect of the exhibits.

MR NG: Yes, that’s correct.

18.So my final sentence is one of 15 months’ imprisonment.