HKSAR v. Cheung Wai Tsun

DCCC89/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 89 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to eight charges of offences contrary to the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. Charges 1 and 8 are charges of theft. Charges 2 to 7 are charges of burglary. The offences were all committed between 30 September 2009 and 15 December 2009. They all involved thefts in public buildings. Four of the buildings were hospitals, one burglary was at a church, one at university, one at a library and one at a school. The items taken were four wallets, two handbags, a computer notebook and a mobile telephone belonging to a doctor.

2.The defendant was spotted by police officers a couple of days after the last offence. He was spotted on 17 December by police officers conducting an anti-crime operation in Kowloon City. He was acting suspiciously. The officer approached him as he suspected the defendant might have been liable for the burglary committed at St. Teresa’s Hospital on 15 December. The defendant admitted that he had committed that offence for money.

3.He was searched and found in possession of a number of items which had been stolen in the burglaries. He was found in possession of a Hong Kong Public Libraries card belonging to the victim in Charge 5, a Public Libraries card belonging to the victim in Charge 4 and a name card belonging to the victim in Charge 7, as well as a bunch of keys belonging to that victim.

4.The first offence was committed on 30 September 2009. The victim in that case is a Dr Lam. He placed his mobile phone inside the working room outside the surgery room at St. Teresa’s Hospital. He was working. After he had finished performing a surgical operation he returned and found that his mobile phone was missing.

5.The 2nd charge was committed on 4 October 2009 at a church in Kowloon City. The victim left her handbag unattended on a cabinet on the 5th floor of the church and later discovered it was missing. She lost a wallet, an iPod, a camera, an ID card, an Octopus card, an ATM card and two credit cards, and cash of $1,000.

6.The victim in the 3rd charge, Madam Lam, was a patient at St. Teresa’s Hospital. She placed her handbag in an unlocked cabinet in Ward 505. She returned to find her wallet missing, containing credit cards, ATM cards, ID card, a home visa permit, a driving licence, a resident card and $200 in cash.

7.The 4th charge in the third burglary was committed on 18 November 2009 at the Baptist University in Kowloon Tong. The victim had left her wallet inside her office, and when she returned a few hours later she found the wallet missing. She lost a variety of cards and $500 in cash.

8.The 5th charge in the fourth burglary was committed on 28 November at the Public Library in Sham Shui Po, Kowloon. The victim had placed her handbag on a chair beside the table. She returned to find her handbag missing. She had lost an ID card, a student card, a public libraries card and two membership cards, and $5 in cash.

9.The 6th charge was committed on 7 December 2009 at the Delia Memorial School in Broadway, Mei Foo San Tsuen. The victim had placed her handbag on the side of a chair inside a teachers’ room. She returned to find her wallet missing from the handbag which contained her ID card, visit permit, a driving licence, an Octopus card, four credit cards, two ATM cards, a membership card and $2,000 in cash.

10.The 7th charge was another patient at St. Teresa’s Hospital. The offence was on 15 December. Again this patient had placed her handbag in a cabinet. She discovered the handbag missing. It contained a bunch of keys, a coins bag containing $35 in cash and a name card.

11.The 8th charge was committed at the Kowloon Hospital on 15 December 2009. The victim is a social welfare assistant working at the Kapok Clubhouse, which serves mental patients attending the unit. He found his notebook computer valued at $16,000 missing. It had been placed on a table inside the clubhouse. Based on information given by the defendant, the police recovered the stolen computer in a shop in Sham Shui Po, but all the data had been deleted.

12.The defendant was later interviewed and admitted the offences. Apart from the computer and a few of the cards, all the other property was not recovered.

13.The defendant has an appalling record. He has 20 previous appearances. He has been convicted of 72 separate offences: 42 offences of theft; 17 of burglary. On 6 March last year, for robbery, he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment and was released on 19 August, a month before this spate of offences commenced.

14.The defendant is 51. He was born in Hong Kong, single, educated to Form 4 level. He is unemployed and in good health, and has had no contact with his family members for over 20 years. He is a recipient of comprehensive social security assistance in a sum of just over $1,800. I am told that these were opportunistic thefts committed by the defendant. He took the opportunity to steal items which he saw unattended. On some of the offences committed at the hospital he was accompanying his friend who was visiting a patient at the hospital.

15.Mitigation was urged upon me that no weapon was used, there was no prising of doors. I am told that the reason for the offence was that he had worked up to 1995 as a hairdresser. He has been out of work since then and was in financial problems. There is no substantial amount of properties were stolen. I am told that, notwithstanding his record, the defendant has indicated through his counsel that he would like to change and does not want to carry on with his pattern of spending time in and out of prison.

16.As Mr Cheung concedes, the only real mitigation in this case is the fact that the defendant has pleaded guilty. These are, in my view, serious offences of theft. Four of them involve theft from personnel or patients at hospitals. That, in my view, is a serious aggravating feature. The 1st charge is a charge of theft only, not burglary, but it is a theft from a working room outside a surgery room, and the item concerned was a doctor’s mobile phone. This offence could have caused serious disruption and inconvenience. Thefts from patients from hospitals is a particularly despicable crime in my view, and a theft of a computer notebook from a social welfare assistant could cause enormous inconvenience to that assistant. Although the computer was recovered, all the data had been deleted.

17.As a starting point in respect of all the offences I take a sentence of 2½ years’ imprisonment. The only mitigation, as I say, is that the defendant has pleaded guilty and is therefore entitled to the usual discount of one-third. So the sentence will be reduced on each offence to 20 months’ imprisonment.

18.I have considered the question of totality. In view of his record I find very shallow the defendant’s assertion that he intends to turn over a new leaf. The defendant is clearly recidivist and needs a deterrent sentence. Considering the question of totality, what I have decided to do is that on Charges 1 to 4 the sentences of 20 months will run concurrently. On Charges 5 to 8, these sentences of 20 months will also run concurrently, but will be consecutive to the first four charges.

19.So the total sentence of imprisonment will be 40 months’ imprisonment.