HKSAR v. WONG WAI HO

DCCC 31/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 31 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary at a hotel room at the International Airport. The facts admitted by the defendant state that on 12 September 2012 the defendant was working at the Marriott Hotel at the Hong Kong International Airport. At 10.30 on 12 September in the morning, a visitor to Hong Kong together with his family checked into Room 868 on the 8th floor of the hotel. The defendant was employed at the hotel as a bellboy and he helped the family to carry their luggage to the room.

2.  After the visitor had checked into the room, he noticed that one of the two key cards which had been supplied to him for access to the room was missing and he reported that matter to the management of the hotel.  The visitor, PW1, went out sightseeing with his family at 11 o’clock and when he returned at 9 o’clock that night he discovered that a watch valued at $41,100 and RMB5,000 had been stolen from his room.  The case was reported to the police.

3.  Computer records disclosed that the room door at the hotel had been opened by a key card between 11 and 12 noon and the CCTV also confirmed that the defendant had taken the lift to the 11th floor of the hotel during that period.  When enquiries were made with the defendant, he initially claimed that he had gone to the 11th floor to use the staff washroom.  However, the hotel confirmed that the 11th floor did not have a staff washroom.

4.  The police arrested and cautioned the defendant and initially he denied the offence.  The police visited his room at Room 320, On Yeung House, Cheung On Estate in Tsing Yi and recovered the watch from under the defendant’s bed and he admitted that he had stolen that watch out of greed. 

5.  In a subsequent recorded interview, the defendant admitted that he had assisted PW1 and his family to take their luggage to the room and he had taken with him two key cards from the hotel to access the room.  He gave one key card to the visitor and kept the other for himself. He said he kept the key card because he owed money and intended to steal from the room.  He noticed at about 11 o’clock that PW1 and his family left the hotel.  At 11.30 he took the lift to the 11th floor and walked down the staircase to the 8th floor.  He said that he had stayed close to the wall of the lift lobby to avoid detection by the CCTV cameras.  He admitted that he had entered the room using the key card and took the watch and the cash from a handbag.  He subsequently left the key card on the television cabinet hoping that PW1 would think that he had left it there when he left the hotel.  After the burglary, the defendant then walked back up the stairs to the 11th floor and took the lift back down to the ground floor.

6.  The defendant said that he used most of the stolen cash to repay a debt and he intended to pawn the watch which he had stolen and also to pay back his credit card debt.

7.  The defendant has a clear record.  He is 24 years of age, he is single and he lives with his parents at the address where the stolen goods were found.  He is educated to Form 5 level.  He has been in employment in the hotel industry since leaving school but following his involvement in this matter he was obviously sacked from the hotel and has been working as a salesman earning $6,000 per month. 

8.  The defendant, and this is the main point in mitigation, has pleaded guilty at the very first opportunity and admitted his involvement in the offence to the police.  The defendant is very remorseful and claims that he committed the offence out of momentary greed.  Notwithstanding that the defendant has been in gainful employment since his schooling, because of his lower income he was unable to meet accumulated credit card debts of about HK$70,000 and he committed the offence in order to repay those debts. 

9.  The defendant has indicated through his counsel that he is willing to compensate the victim in the sum of $6,000 and I am told that moneys have been deposited with his lawyer in order to achieve that and I order that that money be paid into court to compensate the victim.

10.  As regards sentencing, counsel has rightly identified that because of the gravity of this offence the Court of Appeal recommended that the starting point for an offence of this nature should be 3 years’ imprisonment.  It is equivalent to a domestic burglary. 

11.  In my view, there are aggravating features.  I do not accept that this was an offence committed out of momentary greed, this was pre-planned.  He saw the opportunity of committing this offence, he kept back one of the keys and he went up to the 11th floor, walked back down to the 8th floor in order to avoid the CCTV cameras.  He was an employee of the hotel and his involvement in this offence is a breach of trust.  Offences of this kind cause enormous embarrassment for the management of the hotel and for Hong Kong as a whole and I have considered those factors in deciding what should be the appropriate sentence.

12.  On the credit side, the defendant has a clear record.  Although he initially denied the offence, he quickly changed his story, admitted his involvement and the main item stolen was recovered.  Compensation has not only been offered, it has been paid to counsel so he is in a position to repay the amount immediately to the court. 

13.  Notwithstanding the aggravating features, I have decided that the appropriate starting point should be 3 years’ imprisonment and I reduce that by one-third to reflect the defendant’s guilty plea.  That would reduce the sentence to a term of 2 years’ imprisonment.

14.  I have looked at the question of compensation and I have tried to weigh that on the one side with the aggravating features on the other side of the scale.  However, I accept that the offer of compensation is an expression of the defendant’s remorse and the victim will be compensated for his loss.  That is to be encouraged. 

15.  I have therefore decided to reduce that sentence by 3 months to a sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment.