HKSAR v. Paltican Rosaria Caysoen

DCCC 398/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 398 OF 2012

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

____________________

Reasons for Sentence

____________________

Introduction

1.The defendant is convicted upon her own plea of one charge of theft. The property stolen was 12 rings and 5 necklaces belonging to CHIU Sung-lit Anthony (“PW1”).

Facts

2.PW1 and his wife lived at the 5^th floor of House 15, Tycoon Place, No.38 Lo Fai Road, Tai Po. Their jewellery was put in a locked drawer inside a wardrobe in their bedroom (the “Drawer”).

3.The defendant had worked for PW1 at his home as a domestic helper since 2006. She was given the key to PW1’s bedroom so that she could do housework there.

4.On 8 December 2011, the jewellery inside the Drawer was all there and intact.

5.On 26 February 2012 when PW1 checked the jewellery kept inside the Drawer, he found 12 rings and 5 necklaces totally worth HK$858,357 (the “Stolen Jewellery”) missing and the lock of the Drawer damaged. PW1 therefore made a report to the police.

6.On 28 February 2012, the police conducted a search in the defendant’s room and found 3 of the stolen rings, 2 of the stolen necklaces and some pawn tickets. Based on the information contained in those pawn tickets, the police recovered 10 other pieces of the Stolen Jewellery from different pawn shops. Two stolen necklaces totally worth HK$93,157 have not been recovered yet.

7.On a number of occasions between 8 December 2011 and 26 February 2012, the defendant stole the Stolen Jewellery from the Drawer.

The defendant’s previous criminal conviction record and antecedents

8.The defendant has a clear record.

9.The defendant was born in the Philippines in December 1978 and is now 33 years old. She has completed high school education in the Philippines. She started working as a domestic helper in Hong Kong in 2001. She is married with two children, one aged 13 and the other 7. Her husband and two children live in the Philippines.

Mitigation

10.In mitigation, Mr Leung submitted that:

· the strongest mitigating factor was the defendant’s guilty plea;

· the defendant had a clear record and cooperated with the police upon arrest; and

· the defendant committed the present offence because she was in financial difficulty.

Sentencing authorities

11.The present case is a breach of trust case. The defendant was the domestic helper of PW1’s household thus enabling her to have easy access to PW1’s bedroom in which the Stolen Jewellery was kept. It was laid down in HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776, HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017 and HKSAR v Yeung Chiu CACC105/2009 that for an offence of theft involving a breach of trust with the amount of between $250,000 and $1 million, the range of sentence should be 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment.

12.I note that the defendant has a clear record but it counts very little as mitigation in breach of trust cases. In any event, the one-third discount I am going to give the defendant for her guilty plea has already built into it an allowance for good record: HKSAR v Yung Wai Siu [2001] 1 HKLRD 277, 279 and Secretary for Justice v Chau Wan Fun [2007] 1 HKC 423. I also refuse to accept it as a mitigating factor that the defendant committed the present offence because she was in financial difficulty.

13.Having considered the facts of this case, the value of the Stolen Jewellery, the mitigation advanced by the defendant’s legal representative and the sentencing authorities, I am minded to adopt a starting point of 2 years and nine months’ imprisonment.

14.One-third discount is given to the defendant for her guilty plea, thus reducing the sentence to 22 months’ imprisonment. There being no other valid mitigating features justifying any further reduction in sentence. I therefore sentence the defendant to 22 months’ imprisonment.