HKSAR v. CHEUNG SIU KWAN

DCCC 141/2019

[2019] HKDC 1020

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 141 OF 2019

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant was charged with 4 charges of “Theft” contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210 and 9 charges of “Burglary”, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. The defendant pleaded guilty to all the 13 charges.

BRIEF FACTS

Charge 1 – Theft

2.  On 10 October 2018 at around 3:13 pm at “GUCCI” store at Times Square, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong, the defendant entered the store and took a “GUCCI” handbag on display and left the store without paying.  The shopkeepers were unaware that the handbag has been stolen until it was later discovered by the manager of the store.  The handbag was valued at HK$20,800.

3.  In the cautioned interview, the defendant admitted stealing the handbag at the GUCCI store on that day.

Charge 2 – Theft

4.  On 14 October 2018 at around 9:37 pm at “Michael Kors” store at Sogo, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong, the defendant entered the store and took a “Sloan Editor” handbag on display and left the store without paying.  The shopkeepers were unaware that the handbag has been stolen until it was discovered by the assistant manager of the store.  The handbag was valued at HK$5,200.

5.  In the cautioned interview, the defendant admitted stealing the handbag at the Michael Kors store in mid-October.

Charge 3 – Burglary

6.  Ms Li Yuen To ( Ms Li ) worked as a barista at a coffee shop named “Tom N Toms Coffee” at Times Square, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong.  On 22 October 2018 at about 6 pm, Ms Li left her green handbag unattended on a counter in an enclosed area exclusively for staff members of the shop.  Later, Ms Li discovered that her handbag had gone missing.

7.  CCTV footage of the shop captured the defendant entered the “staff only” area and stole Ms Li’s handbag.  The handbag contained a Hong Kong Identity Card (“HKID card”), two ATM bank cards, an octopus card and a “Calvin Klein” watch.  The total value of the stolen properties was HK$1,670.

8.  In the cautioned interview, the defendant admitted stealing the handbag containing the above items on that day.

Charge 4 – Theft

9.  Ms Hung Hin Sau ( Ms Hung ) worked as a cashier at “Chung Kee Dessert” at Parkes Street, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon.  On 1 November 2018 at around 9 am, Ms Hung left her “Samsung C9” mobile phone on the cashier counter at Chung Kee Dessert unattended.  Later, Ms Hung discovered that her mobile phone had gone missing.

10.  CCTV footage of the shop at about 10:22 am captured a female entering the shop and stole Mr Hung’s mobile phone.  At the material time, Chung Kee Dessert was not yet opened for business.  However, the shop’s shutter gate was opened.

11.  In the cautioned interview, the defendant stated that she intended to have dessert at the shop.  However, on entering the shop, she noticed that no one was present inside and the mobile phone was left unattended at the counter. Acting out of greed, she took the mobile phone and left.  She sold the phone for HK$400, which was valued at HK$3,500.

Charge 5 – Burglary

12.  Ms Wong Ka Man (Ms Wong) was the manager of a beauty salon named “ii Hair & Nail” at Atrium, The Landmark, Central, Hong Kong.  On 3 November 2018 at about 9:16 am, she left her iPhone 7 and a phone case unattended at the reception counter.  She later discovered that her mobile phone and the phone case had gone missing.

13.  At the material time, the salon was not yet opened for business.  The shop’s retractable stanchion barriers were in place to stop people from entering the salon.

14.  CCTV footage of the salon at about 9:19 am captured the defendant reaching over the reception counter before hastily fleeing the scene.

15.  In the video recorded interview, the defendant admitted that she saw the mobile phone left unattended at the salon.  She knew the salon was not ready for business yet.  Acting out of greed, she took the mobile phone and left. She sold the mobile phone for around HK$500 to HK$600, which was valued at approximately HK$8,150.

Charge 6 – Burglary

16.  Ms Huang Miaoling (Ms Huang) was the supervisor of the restaurant named “Yu Mai” at Jordan Road, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon.  On 5 November 2018 at about 8 am, she arrived at work and found two “Samsung” tablet computers belonging to the shop owner had gone missing.

17.  CCTV footage of the restaurant at about 6:54 am on that day captured the defendant entering Yu Mai by pressing the button on the automatic sliding door.  The defendant searched the cashier counter and then placed the two tablet computers into her bag.

18.  At the material time, the restaurant was not yet opened for business.

19.  In the video recorded interview, the defendant admitted that she went into Yu Mai knowing that it was not yet opened for business.  The defendant stole the two tablet computers and sold them for a total sum of HK$300, which were valued at HK$5,000 in total.

Charge 7 – Burglary

20.  Ms Wan Ka Po (Ms Wan) worked as a waitress at a beverage shop “TP Tea” at World-Wide House, Des Voeux Road Central, Central, Hong Kong.  On 9 November 2018 at about 8:40 am, she left her blue handbag unattended at one of the counters at the beverage shop.  She later discovered that her handbag had gone missing.

21.  CCTV footage of the beverage shop at around 8:40 am captured the defendant entering the shop and stole her handbag and an “Asus” tablet computer belonging to the shop owner.

22.  At the material time, the shop was not yet opened for business.

23.  In the video recorded interview, the defendant admitted entering the beverage shop through the half-opened roller shutter.  Once inside, she saw that no one was present and the handbag was left unattended.  She then took it and left the shop out of greed.

24.  The handbag contained HKID card, Home Return Permit, one ATM bank card, one Octopus Ornament with octopus card function and cash of HK$60.  The value of the stolen properties was approximately HK$2,460.

Charge 8 – Burglary

25.  Mr Ng Wai Chung Benjamin (Mr Ng) was the person in charge of a restaurant “Hainanmom” at Shu Kuk Street, North Point, Hong Kong.  On 11 November 2018 at about 11:44 am, Mr Ng was alerted by his co-workers that some cash belonging to the restaurant had gone missing.  Upon checking, Mr Ng found that the zipper bag containing cash of HK$2,000 was missing.

26.  CCTV footage of the restaurant at about 9:41 am on that day captured the defendant entering the restaurant by pressing a button to open the automatic sliding door.  Once inside, the defendant was seen stealing the zipper bag at the cashier counter. 

27.  At the material time, the restaurant was not yet opened for business.

28.  In the video recorded interview, the defendant admitted that she entered Hainanmom knowing that it was not yet opened for business and stole the cash in the zipper bag.

Charge 9 – Burglary

29.  Ms Szeto Sau King (Ms Szeto) was a kitchen staff of a dessert shop “Lucky Dessert” at Shantung Street, Mong Kok, Kowloon.  On 15 November 2018 at about 9:40 am, Ms Szeto arrived at the dessert shop and placed her rucksack unattended at the cashier counter.  The roller shutter gate was left half-opened.  Ms Szeto later discovered her rucksack had gone missing.

30.  CCTV footage of the dessert shop at around 10:39 am captured the defendant entering the dessert shop under the half-opened roller shutter gate and stole the rucksack from the cashier counter.

31.  At the material time, the dessert shop was not yet opened for business.

32.  In the video recorded interview, the defendant admitted that she entered the dessert shop via the half-opened roller shutter gate knowing that it was not yet opened for business.  She saw the bag lying unattended, so she took it out of greed.  She spent the cash and the cash coupons and sold the octopus card at the MTR station for around HK$100.

33.  The rucksack contained a “Prada” wallet, a HKID card, one driving licence, one PRC Exit / Entry Permit to travel to and from Hong Kong and Macau, one ATM bank card, one octopus card, six cash coupons and cash of HK$10,000. The value of the stolen properties was approximately HK$12,600.

Charge 10 – Burglary

34.  Ms Gurung Agni (Ms Gurung) worked as a cashier at a restaurant named “Five Guys” at Johnston Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong.  On 19 November 2018 between 7 to 8 pm, Ms Gurung placed her wallet (in maroon and white colours) inside her rucksack, and left it in the restaurant’s staff locker room.  The staff locker room was not to be accessed by non-staff members.  At around midnight, Ms Gurung found that her wallet was missing.  The wallet contained one ATM bank card, a HKID card, one octopus card and cash of HK$500.

35.  In the video recorded interview, the defendant admitted that she stole a bag which left unattended at the restaurant on 19 November 2018.

Charge 11 – Theft

36.  Mr Wan Zhiyong (Mr Wan) was the manager of a supermarket named “Kai Bo Food Supermarket” at Wan Chai Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong.  On 30 November 2018, Mr Wan agreed to employ the defendant as a shop assistant at the supermarket.

37.  On 1 December 2018 at around 7 am, Mr Wan checked that his wallet was properly stored in an unlocked drawer of a desk in the supermarket.  At around 7:24 am, the defendant arrived at the supermarket to report on duty.  Mr Wan later discovered that $600 was missing from his wallet.  A report was made to the police.

38.  CCTV footage at around 8 am captured the defendant searched and took an object from the unlocked drawer of the desk which Mr Wan kept his wallet.

Charge 12 – Burglary

39.  Mr Thapa Bikash (Mr Thapa) and Ms Austria Corazon (Ms Corazon) were staff at the restaurant “Jollibee” at Hennessy Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong.  On 2 December 2018 at the beginning of their work shifts at 10 am and 11 am respectively, they stored their bags in the lockers in the staff locker room. Later that day, at around 2 pm, they were alerted that their properties in the staff locker room had gone missing.

40.  CCTV footage of the restaurant at around 11:29 am captured the defendant entering the staff locker room and stealing a number of objects from the lockers.

41.  In the cautioned interview, the defendant admitted that she had entered the staff locker room in the restaurant and stole a wallet containing cash of a few hundred dollars, some bank cards and octopus card.

42.  Mr Thapa’s wallet contained one bank card, one ATM bank card, one octopus card and cash of HK$600.  The properties stolen from Ms Corazon were one mobile phone, one blue wallet containing HKID card, one octopus card and cash of HK$100.  The value of the stolen properties was at approximately HK$2,620.

Charge 13 – Burglary

43.  Ms Ng Yu Sheung (Ms Ng) was a waitress of a restaurant named “Chee Kei” at Percival Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong.  On 4 December 2018 at about 9:30 am, Ms Ng arrived at work.  She left her green handbag unattended on a table.  At about 10:20 am, she discovered that her handbag had gone missing. The incident was reported to the police.

44.  CCTV footage of the restaurant at around 9:49 am captured the defendant entering the restaurant and stole Ms Ng’s handbag.

45.  At the material time, Chee Kei was not yet opened for business.  The shutter gate was left half-opened.

46.  In the cautioned interview, the defendant admitted she had stolen a wallet from Chee Kei on 4 December 2018.

47.  The handbag contained one black wallet, HKID card, three bank credit cards, one ATM bank card, one bank passbook, one key and cash of HK$1,800 and RMB900.  The value of the stolen properties was at HK$3,205.

48.  The defendant was arrested at around 10:05 am on 6 December 2018 by PC19557.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

49.  The defendant is now 34 years of age.  She has a daughter who is one-year old and born out of wedlock.  The defendant came from a broken family and was raised up in an institution.  That said, she managed to complete her Form 5 education.

50.  The defendant took on various odd jobs but none of them were steady ones.  At the time of the offences, she was in financial difficulties because she was unemployed and her Comprehensive Social Service Allowance in the monthly sum of HK$5,000 was insufficient to meet her and her daughter’s expenses.

51.  The defendant’s solicitor, Mr Tang mitigated on her behalf, that she committed these offences due to greediness, financial pressure and postpartum depression which she suffered after the birth of her daughter.  I have not been provided with any medical evidence in support of the claim of postpartum depression so I did not take this into consideration.

52.  That said, these are not reasons to justify the offences which the defendant committed. 

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

53.  The defendant committed these offences between 10 October and 4 December 2018, spanning a period of nearly 2 months.  The modus operandi are all similar.  The defendant might have started off as an amateur thief and burglar for the first few times, but by the time when she committed the last few offences, she acted like a professional.

54.  From being an opportunistic thief and burglar: visiting shops and restaurants in the early mornings; taking advantage of the staff going about their duties before they opened for business; and in the course leaving their personal belongings unattended to allow the defendant’s opportunity to commit the offences; to one of venturing into the prohibited areas of staff quarters and lockers to steal and burgle, the defendant has sharpened her skills as a thief and burglar.

55.  In Charge 11, the defendant got employed by the manager of the supermarket, Mr Wan as a shop assistant on 30 December 2018, and on the first day of work on 1 November 2018, she immediately stole HK$600 from Mr Wan’s wallet.  The act was clearly pre-meditated and not an opportunistic theft.

56.  None of the properties were recovered at the time of arrest.  The total value of the stolen properties is about HK$70,000 which is a very substantial amount of money.

57.  However, I acknowledged your remorse as demonstrated by your frank admissions when investigated by the police and your guilty pleas at the first opportunity to all the charges.

SENTENCE

58.  The starting point for burglary in the non-domestic premises, without aggravating feature, is 2 ½ years’ imprisonment terms.  There are altogether 9 charges of “Burglary”, committed within a period of 2 months.  I have taken into account her clear criminal record, I would adopt an overall starting point of 33 months to reflect the criminality of the offences, namely the number of offences and the amount stolen.

59.  I ordered that the sentence of Charges 3, 5-10, 12 and 13 be one of 33 months’ imprisonment for each charge and reduced to 22 months’ after the 1/3 discount for guilty pleas.  All the sentences to be served concurrently.

60.  For the 4 charges of theft, save and except charge 11, I considered them opportunistic thefts.  I adopted a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment for Charges 1, 2 and 4 and a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment for Charge 11.  The defendant is entitled to the 1/3 discount for her guilty pleas, so the sentence of Charges 1, 2 and 4 be of 4 months’ imprisonment and the sentence of Charge 11 be of 6 months’ imprisonment.  The sentences of Charges 1, 2 and 4 be served concurrently with Charge 11, making a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment for all the theft charges.

61.  Taking into account the totality principle, I consider a global sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment be appropriate in light of her guilty plea at the first opportunity.

62.  To achieve this, I ordered that the 22 months’ imprisonment for Charges 3, 5-10, 12 and 13 be served consecutively with the 6 months’ imprisonment for Charges 1, 2, 4 and 11.

63.  The defendant is sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment for the 11 charges.