HKSAR v. YUNIA TAMRIN

DCCC334/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 334 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

 1.  The defendant has been convicted on her plea of one charge of burglary committed on 4 March this year.  She stole RMB300 which belonged to the mother-in-law of her employer.  The victim and her daughter-in-law lived in separate flats in the same block at South Horizons.  The defendant and another Indonesian domestic helper lived at her employer’s flat; Defendant in fact shared a bedroom with her employer’s daughter.  Her employer often took her family and the two domestic helpers, including the defendant, to visit her mother-in-law at her flat.

2.  On the morning in question, the mother-in-law placed 10 RMB100 banknotes in a cupboard inside her bedroom, and she and her husband then left Hong Kong and returned late that night and found RMB300 missing, with no sign of ransacking or breaking-in. 

3.  CCTV footage, which was watched by a police officer, showed that the defendant had entered the tower on the previous day.  The police went to where she was living, and arrested the defendant who, under caution, admitted the offence.  The keys to the victim’s flat were found in a drawer in the defendant’s bedroom.  In a subsequent interview, the defendant again admitted the offence, expressed regret and apologised to the employer.  She admitted that she had stolen the keys in order to use them for stealing.  The stolen money, she said, had been used to buy food and transport.

(Discussion re age of the defendant)

4.  Whether the defendant is 31 or 37 years of age, she has a clear record.

5.  A person who is employed as a domestic helper and lives in the premises is of course in a position of trust.  The employer inevitably places a great deal of trust in that person not to abuse her position, for instance by stealing any of the employer’s belongings.  Although the person she stole from was in fact her employer’s mother-in-law, the same principle applies.  A degree of trust was placed in her, which she abused.

6.  I do take into account the small amount of money which was stolen, and also that apparently only 3 out of 10 of these notes were in fact stolen by the defendant.  In all the circumstances, I have adopted a slightly reduced starting point of 2 and a half years’ imprisonment after trial, and in return for the defendant’s plea of guilty and her co-operation, she is entitled to the one-third discount which reduces this starting point to 20 months’ imprisonment. 

7.  In all of the circumstances of this case - I have in mind, inter alia, her clear record, the very small amount that was stolen, the fact that it did not involve any forcible entry, that she is remorseful and has apologised, and also I bear in mind that she is very likely to be deported once she has served her sentence - I discount the sentence by a further 4 months and sentence her to 16 months’ imprisonment.