HKSAR v. Joni Pakit

DCCC 983/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 983 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to three charges of burglary. The premises concerned are all serviced apartments.

2.In respect of the first burglary, at around 2 pm on 30 January, the first victim, a Mr Cushing, put four traveller’s cheques inside a plastic box and kept the box inside his wardrobe at his room at Room 401 on the 4th Floor of 24 Elgin Street, Central. 

3.When he opened the box on the afternoon of 10 February, he found the traveller’s cheques and cash was missing.  However, there was no sign of ransacking and the main door and windows of the home remained intact throughout the period.  The case was reported to the police.

4.The second burglary occurred at around 8 am on 27 July 2012.  A Mr Dixon, the second victim, locked the main door and drawer of his cabinet in Room 504 on the 5th Floor of 113-115 Wing Lok Street, Sheung Wan. 

5.When he returned home at 11 o’clock that day he discovered that HK$1,000, $500 in United Arab Emirates currency and £60 Sterling kept in the drawer had gone missing.  Again, there was no sign of ransacking and the main door and windows remained intact. 

6.The third burglary, the victim was a Miss Blissing, who moved into Room 401, Elgin Street, in July 2012.  At around 9.45 pm on 28 July she locked the main door and switched off the lights before leaving home. 

7.When she returned home at 3 am in the morning the next day she found the lamp beside her bed had been switched on and her mobile phone and cash of about HK$3,000 which she kept in her wallet and her Asia Miles membership card had gone missing.  Again, there was no sign of ransacking and the main door and windows remained intact.

8.City Loft Serviced Studios (City Loft) is the serviced apartments’ management company of both premises.  When they were informed of the burglaries they inspected CCTV footage and saw that the defendant appeared at the staircases of the two buildings at the material times of the second and third burglaries.

9.The defendant had been employed by City Loft as a maintenance worker in January 2010 and his responsibilities included maintaining and repairing fixtures, furniture and equipment at the two buildings.  To perform his duties he was entrusted with keys to enter all the flats of the two buildings.

10.Owing to his poor performance, he was dismissed in July 2010, and before leaving City Loft he signed an agreement to confirm that he had returned all original and duplicate keys to City Loft.

11.The defendant was arrested at his residence on 31 July, and upon search of his premises two traveller’s cheques belonging to the first victim, the phone, cash of $5,000 Hong Kong currency, RMB200 and 250 United Arab Emirates currency and 27 keys were located.

12.In an interview under caution the defendant admitted voluntarily that he had stolen the money and the phone.

13.He was subsequently cautioned and video-recorded for interview purposes and he said that he had worked at City Loft and was unemployed at the present time.  He said that he used a phone card to open the door in connection with the second building to gain entry and he stole the currency from within the room.  He said he used the same method to gain entry into the premises the subject of the 3rd charge and he stole the phone and the cash from a wallet.

14.The defendant made no comment as to the 1st charge and he claimed that the 27 keys which were found in his home were old keys which he had forgotten to dispose of.  However, when they were tested it was discovered that 14 of them can be used to open a total of 11 other serviced apartments managed by City Loft.

15.The defendant has appeared before the court previously, in February 2006 and again in February 2007, but they were for dissimilar offences.  The appearance in February 2006 concerned possession of Part I Poison and the 2007 appearance concerned possession of dangerous drugs.

16.I am told that the defendant is 34 years of age, he was born in the Philippines and educated to Secondary level in the Philippines.  He is a married man and he has a 6-year-old daughter.  His wife and child live in the Philippines.  The defendant came to Hong Kong in 1997, having been sponsored by his mother who is a Hong Kong resident. 

17.I am told that the motivation for the commission of the offences was for economic reasons.  He had lost his job and he was desperate for money to support his wife and child in the Philippines.  He turned to friends to borrow money but when that supply ran out he decided to commit the burglaries the subject of the charge.

18.The main features of mitigation are that he admitted the offences when he was arrested by the police and he has pleaded guilty at the first opportunity in court today. 

19.Counsel, I am told, has explained to him the implications of being convicted of burglaries at residential premises, and there is no doubt that these are regarded as residential premises. 

20.Aggravating features of this case are of course that he was entrusted with keys to these premises, so there is the element of breach of trust in this case.

21.A further aggravating feature is that the way in which these burglaries were committed would obviously throw suspicion on honest employees of the serviced apartments, and clearly it was an embarrassment for the proprietors of the premises when people can enter people’s rooms and steal in this way.

22.However, I note that this is the first conviction for any offence of dishonesty.  I therefore intend to adopt the usual starting point for each of the offences, which is a sentence of 3 years.

23.You are entitled to a discount of one-third to reflect the guilty plea, so that sentence will be reduced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

24.I have to consider the question of totality of sentence.

25.What I have decided is that I will impose sentences of 2 years’ imprisonment for each of the three offences and order that 4 months of the sentence on Charge 2 shall run consecutive to the sentence on Charge 1, and 4 months of the sentence on Charge 3 shall run consecutive to the sentence on Charge 2.

26.You will therefore go to prison for a total period of 2 years and 8 months.

Please refer to CACC10/2013 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.