HKSAR v. Lai Sin Jun

DCCC550/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 550 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.In this case, the defendant, Miss Lai Sin-jun, faced one count of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210, Laws of Hong Kong. She was convicted upon her plea and admission of facts.

The Facts of the Case

2.The victim in this case resided at Room 2008, Un Lok House, Un Chau Estate, the burglarised premises. She was an acquaintance of the defendant’s and had invited the latter to play mahjong at her home before.  

3.On 7 March 2012, the victim told the defendant that she would be away the next day and that no one would be at home.  At about 11 am the next day, the defendant contacted a locksmith acquaintance of hers and employed him to break the lock of the flat belonging to the victim. In ignorance of the fact that the defendant did not live in that premises, the locksmith did as was told.

4.Having gained entrance to the premises thus, the defendant stole therein cash HK$10,500, cash RMB 3,065 and four pieces of HK$100 commemorative banknotes.

5.When the inhabitants of the premises returned and saw the prise marks on the door, they reported to the police. The defendant was identified through the CCTV footage of the building. She was subsequently arrested. Under caution the defendant admitted that she had engaged the service of a locksmith to open the door of the premises and stole therefrom.

6.Burglary of domestic premises has always been considered as very serious crime for which there is a very clear line of authorities on the proper sentence.  Both the prosecution and the defence agree that for offences of this nature, 3 years as the starting line is the norm.

7.In this case, there is an aggravating factor. The defendant had abused the trust of a friend and had made use of information disclosed to her to commit the offence.  She had also used an innocent third party to perpetuate her crime.  In my view, a higher starting point is warranted.

8.Before passing sentence, I have called for a psychologist’s report and a probation officer’s report.  From the reports, I came to know that the defendant was aged 42, an Indonesian who came to Hong Kong and married to a local resident in 1991.  She had a 19 year old daughter who has now completed Form 6.  According to both reports, the defendant’s relationship with her husband was not a harmonious one.  Throughout the years in Hong Kong, she has worked intermittently as a beverage assistant in a fast-food shop or a casual cleaning worker.  She is a compulsive gambler who had incurred rather substantial debt in the game of mahjong.  

9.Both the probation officer and the psychologist were of the view that the reason for the defendant to commit the present offence was due to financial pressure from her gambling debts and the fact that her father suffered from injury in Indonesia and required financial assistance. In my view financial stress is not exactly a valid mitigating factor.

10.The defendant is a mature woman and she had a previous record.  She therefore could not come forward as a person ignorant of the ways of the world.

11.Taking into account of the above factor and the fact  that the defendant was willing to restitute part of the money stolen, I consider it appropriate to not to start a higher starting point; as the willingness to restitute is a valid mitigating factor.  Otherwise, the court would have adopted a higher starting point.

12.The only other valid mitigating factor is the fact that the defendant has pleaded guilty.  In accordance with the usual practice, I will reduce the sentence by one-third to reflect this.  Therefore, the defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years, and there shall be a restitution order in the sum of $7,000.