HKSAR v. TUCKER MOONA CHRISTIE SIU

DCCC 1105/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1105 OF 2016

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to 1 charge of "Burglary" (Charge 1) and 1 charge of "Theft" (Charge 2).

Summary of Facts

2.  The subject premises of Charge 1 were situated at 4^th Floor, 15 Cameron Road, Tsim Sha Tsui ("the Flat").  The Flat was divided into 6 rooms.  Room 4 was occupied by 2 South Asians (PWs 1 and 2), who began to reside there since November 2015.

Charge 1

3.  PWs 1 and 2 left Room 4 around 1:00 p.m. on 10 August 2016.  PW2 came back around 5:40 p.m. on the same day.  He found his HP notebook computer (valued at $4,500) and LG tablet (valued at $1,000) missing.  There were no prize marks or signs of ransacking.  Later on, PW1 returned as well.  He found his Samsung mobile phone (valued at $4,500), Dell laptop computer (valued at $7,800), Samsung tablet (valued at $2,000) and cash in the sum of $10,000 missing.  The Police was alerted.

4.  CCTV footage of 15 Cameron Road captured the defendant walking down the stairs and going near the doors on various floors on 10 August 2016.  She reached the 4^th Floor around 2:18 p.m. and used a card-like object to enter the Flat.  She came out after about 5 minutes.  She was wearing a white T-shirt with the word "CREEKS" printed on it.

Charge 2

5.  About 12:55 p.m. on 13 August 2016, PC 17573 (PW7) was on patrol at Chungking Mansion in plainclothes.  Upon reaching the 11^th Floor, he saw the defendant talking to a South Asian male.  They turned around to leave when they saw PW7. PW7 and his colleagues stopped them for identification check.

6.  The defendant claimed that her Hong Kong Identity Card was in her room and led the police officers to Room D8 on the same floor, where she retrieved her HKID card from a wallet.

7.  The defendant was searched by WPC 14533 (PW8) in Room D8.  A Starbucks membership card in the name of Lucy Kim (E1) was found in the defendant's wallet.  PW8 arrested her for "Theft by finding".

8.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that she picked up E1 at Chungking Mansion over half a month ago.  She did not use E1.  She kept it because she liked its look. The owner of E1 was located.  She confirmed that she lost E1 on 11 July 2016 at Jordan MTR Station.  She had transferred the remaining balance of E1 to a new card and did not suffer any loss.

Further Evidence on Charge 1

9.  In the course of enquiry, PW8 asked the defendant if she had been to 15 Cameron Road on 10 August 2016.  She replied positively.

10.  Room D8 was searched.  A white T-shirt with the word "CREEKS" printed on it, a pair of black pants, a pair of purple shoes and a dark colour rucksack were found.  Those clothes and the rucksack matched what the intruder wore and carried in the CCTV footage.  The defendant was then arrested for "Burglary".

11.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that she went to 15 Cameron Road on 10 August 2016 to look for a friend.  She entered a unit on the 4^th Floor but did not find her friend, so she left after 5 minutes.  She denied having entered any of the rooms or taken anything away.

Mitigation & Sentence

12.  The defendant is 32 and has 5 conviction records, which included 4 "Theft" offences.  She was given a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Order for 2 offences of "Theft" in September 2016 (KCCC 2206/2016). Defence solicitor Mr. CHEUNG informed me that the defendant committed the present offences whilst on bail in KCCC 2206/2016.  The latest DATC report reveals that the defendant is still a drug dependant and is suitable to continue with her current treatment.

13.  The defendant is a Eurasian born in Hong Kong.  She is the mother of 2 sons and 1 daughter (aged 12, 8 and 3 respectively).  Her late father was a quantitative surveyor from England and he passed away in 2011.  The defendant completed F.3 at an expatriate school on Hong Kong island and then worked as a kindergarten teacher for about 2 years.  In early 2003, she met her 1^st boyfriend and they have 2 sons.  After the birth of their 2^nd son, the boyfriend walked out.  In early 2010, the defendant met her 2^nd boyfriend and they have a daughter.

14. In mitigation, Mr. CHEUNG submitted that the defendant is sorry for what she did. She would not be able to teach at a kindergarten again, and could only work as a private tutor for English. Notwithstanding the lack of direct evidence as to what she had taken away from Room 4, Mr. CHEUNG informed me that the defendant now admits that she took 1 laptop with her. Mr. CHEUNG stressed that the defendant was indeed looking for her friend there. When she could not find her friend, she became greedy.

15. As a child growing up in an expatriate family in Hong Kong, the defendant had more opportunities to excel and fewer hurdles to overcome than most local children. It is sad to see her throwing all her privileges away. According to the DATC Report, it appears that the root of the defendant's problems is her drug habit and association with undesirable peers. The defendant has no one but herself to blame. I understand that the defendant's mother is now caring for the 2 boys and the youngest daughter is under foster care. The 3 children are completely blameless, but they have to suffer because of what their mother did.

16. The normal starting point for domestic burglary is 3 years' imprisonment. Whilst it may be desirable for the defendant to continue with her drug addiction treatment, a DATC Order is simply insufficient punishment for the burglary offence committed by her. If the defendant is determined to turn a new leaf in her life, she should make effective use of her time in prison to get rid of her drug habit and to equip herself with skills to earn a living after release. For Charge 1, I adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment. With the guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 2 years. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 2 years' imprisonment for this charge.

17. For Charge 2, I adopt a starting point of 3 weeks' imprisonment. With the guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 2 weeks. I sentence the defendant to 2 weeks' imprisonment for this charge.

18. Bearing in mind the totality principle, I order the sentences for Charges 1 and 2 to run concurrently. In other words, the total prison term for both charges is 2 years.