HKSAR v. Bahtiar Ernawati

DCCC 35/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 35 OF 2011

____________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

2.In summary the defendant was the domestic helper at the home of Madam Fung in Tai Po.  Between July and November 2010 the defendant stole cash and various items of jewellery belonging to Madam Fung from unlocked rooms, drawers and cupboards in the home.  In November 2010 when Madam Fung discovered cash was missing she confronted the defendant who admitted taking the money.  The following day Madam Fung discovered her jewellery, as particularised in the charge, was also missing.  The defendant admitted that in October 2010 she had taken some gold ornaments and sold them to a friend.

3.The matter was then reported to the police.  Under caution the defendant admitted she had stolen items from the home since July 2010.  The cash had all been used up and some of the jewellery had been given to a friend for pawning.  As a result all the stolen items, except a pearl ring and the cash, were recovered. 

4.The jewellery is valued at about $330,000, the price paid by Madam Fung.  The jewellery was pawned with three different pawnshops in the sum of $86,000. Settlement with the pawnshop owners has not yet been reached.  Cash in the sum HK$8,000 and ¥6,500 Renminbi was also stolen, making a total value of the stolen goods of nearly $350,000. 

5.I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Miss Tai, including the defendant is the sole breadwinner of a poor family in Indonesia.

6.In passing sentence I have considered the principles laid down in      R v Clark (1998) 2 Cr App R 137 as applied in HKSAR v CHEUNG Mee-kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776.  In CHEUNG Mee-kiu the Court of Appeal said the proper starting point after trial where the amount stolen was between HK$250,000 and $1 million is 2-3 years imprisonment. 

7.Taking into account the defendant’s clear record, a substantial part of the stolen property has been recovered and therefore the loss to Madam Fung will not be as great, I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial is 2 years imprisonment.  Giving the defendant full credit for her plea of guilty she is sentenced to 1 year and 4 months imprisonment.