HKSAR v. Wong Pui Sze

DCCC 1116/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1116 OF 2012

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

2.Briefly in 2008 the defendant started work as a clerk at Gil Hair Product Company Limited at which time she was given a key to the company office in Kwun Tong and a key to the shop “JJ Pro” in North Point.  On the 23rd August last year staff of the company received a message from the defendant saying she had taken some money from the company.

Charges 1-3

3.Investigation revealed that on the 6th, 15th and 21st August last year Mr Wong Ka-fai delivered hair products for the company and collected payment in the sums of $3,273, $2,316 and $2,664 from the customers.  Mr Wong gave all the money to the defendant however the defendant did not account to her company for the money which she stole.

Charge 4

4.Between the 21st and 22nd August last year the defendant used the key to enter JJ Pro and stole cash in the sum of $7,331 from a drawer.

5.In late August after the defendant failed to return the money the proprietor reported the matter to the police.  On the 12th September the defendant surrendered to the police station and under video recorded interview admitted stealing the money given to her by Mr Wong and stealing the cash from JJ Pro.  The defendant spent all the money on gambling.

6.I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Miss Ma, in particular why the defendant stole the money; that she telephoned the company telling them she had stolen the money; and that she surrendered to the police. I take into account the parents have repaid Gil Hair an agreed sum of $5,000 although I note this is not full restitution.

7.I take into account the defendant has two young daughters to look after; she is now pregnant and that the father of the child and the youngest daughter has left her.  I have considered the various reports which confirm the defendant is pregnant with the expected date of confinement being early May. 

8.By stealing the money of Gil Hair and using the key to steal cash from the drawer of JJ Pro the defendant breached the trust placed in her by her employer.  In passing sentence I have considered the principles laid down in R v Clark (1998) 2 Cr App R 137 as applied inHKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776.  Where the amount stolen is HK$250,000 or less the guideline sentence is less than 2 years.  

9.What concerns the court is the defendant’s drug addiction, the defendant having been found to be a drug dependant and considered suitable for admission to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.  The defendant however wishes to be sentenced to imprisonment and not sent to the DATC, in particular having been in custody for four months. 

10.The DATC report details the defendant’s long history of drug taking, dating as far back as 1991 when the defendant was only 12.  The defendant’s only conviction is for possession of drugs in 1999 when she was placed on probation.  Clearly to be rid of her drug habit will be in the best interests of both the defendant and her children.  

11.Although on the last occasion I said I was not minded to impose a DATC order I did not rule this out as a sentencing option.  Having given careful consideration to all the circumstances of the case I am satisfied a sentence of rehabilitation is appropriate and not a sentence of imprisonment, in particular the defendant has never been to a DATC before. 

12.The defendant is convicted and sentenced to detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre, concurrent on each charge.  Convictions are recorded.