HKSAR v. Gregorio Rowena Sacdalan

HCMA000197/2002

HCMA197/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.197 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 3310 OF 2001)

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

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

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Carlson in Court

Date of Hearing: 14 August 2002

Date of Judgment: 14 August 2002

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1.This appellant was employed as a domestic helper and stole a 20-dollar note from her employers. Foolishly, in my judgment, she decided to contest the matter that she was convicted at the Eastern Magistrates' Court and sentenced to a term of three months' imprisonment.

2.On appeal, it is submitted that such a sentence is manifestly excessive on the basis that afterall this is only 20 dollars. It should be realized by people who go to work as domestic helpers, living in the home of their employer, that great trust and confidence is placed in them. Employers, so often both husband and wife, who go out to work during the day, are particularly vulnerable to any light-fingered domestic helper. And perhaps it is not surprising therefore that the learned magistrate took a severe view of this matter, but I have come to the view that there is merit in this appeal. At the end of the day, this was only 20 dollars. I do not seek to in any sense diminish the gravity of the situation. This is a breach of trust, but really one ought to retain a sense of proportion.

3.I am going to allow this appeal. I take the view that a prison sentence of some sort was merited in these particular circumstances. The correct length of such a sentence, in my judgment, in the circumstances of this case is one of 28 days and I think it is a case where the court could then take it one stage further by suspending that sentence. I propose to say therefore 28 days suspended for 12 months. I will quash the term of three months' imprisonment and replace it with that sentence.

4.[Now stand up please.] I have imposed this suspended sentence. I am going to tell you what that means. Provided you commit no other offence for the next 12 months starting from today, you will not have to serve this term, but if you do commit an offence, you will be in breach of this sentence; you will almost inevitably have to serve it and you will serve it no doubt in addition to any other term that the court might care to impose in relation to the offence that would have put you in breach of my sentence today. Do you understand that?

Representation:

Mr Giles Surman, instructed by Legal Aid Department, assigned by D.L.A., for the Appellant

Mr Paul K. Madigan of Department of Justice, for the Respondent