HKSAR v. Suismiati
|
DCCC 161/2013 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 161 OF 2013 ----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary. 2.The facts admitted by the defendant are that the victim in this case, a Miss Chow Chiu-lan who is aged 81 years of age, lives alone at No. 29, Mo Fan Heung in Yuen Long, New Territories. 3.At the time of the offence, the defendant was employed as a domestic helper at No. 30, Mo Fan Heung, which is opposite the victim’s home. 4.The whole area of the victim’s home is enclosed by 6-foot-tall zinc boards and high walls with an iron gate at its entrance. The premises comprise two stone huts and a vacant piggery. The victim lives in one of the huts and the other hut has kitchen and toilet facilities. 5.The victim has found it necessary to have three CCTV cameras installed, one of them inside her bedroom. 6.At 11 o’clock on the morning of 16 January 2013, the victim returned home after having gone shopping. She went straight to her bedroom without locking the iron gate. She placed her handbag in the lowest drawer of a wooden cabinet near the window of the bedroom. She went then to the kitchen which is in another stone hut. 7.When she returned to her bedroom at 12.28 pm, she discovered that the windowpane was broken and the lowest drawer of the wooden cabinet was open and her handbag was missing. 8.The bag contained two coins bags, a copy of her identity card, senior citizen’s card and Octopus card, a watch valued at $500 and a phone card and cash of $221.60. 9.Feeling scared, she rang her daughter and a report was made to the police. 10.The police viewed CCTV footage which showed that at 12.04 pm on the day of the offence, the defendant went into No. 29 through the opened iron gate. She smashed the windowpane and opened the window. 11.The window is fitted with a metal frame which prevents entry to the bedroom. 12.The defendant, therefore, put her arm through the window and opened the first two drawers of the wooden cabinet which were empty. She then used a 23-centimetre-long iron plate to open the lowest drawer and hook the victim’s handbag out of the window. She then fled. 13.The victim recognised the defendant as the domestic helper of No. 30. 14.The defendant was arrested the same day and, under caution, immediately admitted the offence. 15.Everything was recovered except $200 in cash, which the defendant said she had spent on a mobile phone add-value voucher and some food. 16.The defendant has a clear record. She is aged 32 and was born in Indonesia. She is educated to lower secondary level. She has four siblings, two of whom are still undergoing full-time education. The father deserted the family and her unemployed mother has to look after the children. 17.The defendant has been a domestic helper in Hong Kong since 2003 and worked for her current employer since 2005. She earns $3,580 per month, out of which she sends $2,000 to her family in Indonesia. She is the main breadwinner for the family. 18.In mitigation, it was mentioned that the defendant has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and was co-operative with the police. She admitted the offence and assisted in the recovery of nearly all the stolen property. 19.I am told that the offence was committed out of greed and she apologises to the victim. 20.I take into account that this offence will not only have serious consequences for the defendant, who will inevitably be sent to prison, but also for her family in Indonesia. 21.An aggravating feature of this case is, however, that the victim is 81 years of age, she is a female and lives alone. The defendant must have known that because she had worked at a premises across the road from the victim for eight years. 22.The victim was at the premises when the offence was committed. This must have been a very frightening experience for her. 23.However, given the clear record of the defendant and her co-operation with the police, I do not propose to take a starting point higher than the normal starting point for an offence of this kind. 24.The starting point for an offence of this kind is a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment and I reduce that sentence by one-third to reflect the guilty plea. 25.The defendant will, therefore, go to prison for 2 years.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||