HKSAR v. YIM PAK HO, MYRON

DCCC 81/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 81 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to one offence of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, also to one offence of falsely pretending to be a public officer, contrary to section 22(1) of the Summary Offences Ordinance, Cap 228. You admitted the facts and I convicted you on those facts. However, I also convicted you after trial of one offence of attempted burglary, contrary to sections 11(1)(a) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.

2.  The facts are dealt with fully in my reasons for my verdict.  I therefore deem it unnecessary to deal with them in detail at this point yet again. 

3.  Basically what happened is this, you stole the warrant card of PW1, a senior inspector of police, in whose flat you resided. When he was abroad, you then went on two occasions to Aberdeen Police College.  On the second occasion you attempted to break into a barrack room in order to steal from there.  When you were caught, you produced the warrant card and pretended to be Senior Inspector of Police Tam in order to get away.  You went on to give another lie as your purpose for being at the college. 

4.  You admitted to three previous convictions on two occasions.  The first conviction being one of burglary in which you stole police uniforms from a police station.  I note that the disposal of that case was very lenient indeed.

5.  In view of the bizarre nature of your psychological condition, I adjourned the case for the preparation of a psychological report to supplement the one provided by defence and for a probation officer’s background report.  The former confirms your obsession with the police and in particular with police uniforms and the need for psychological treatment. 

6.  I do note that the psychologist finds that your risk of re-offending is assessed as being medium to high.  But if I understand that correctly, that is prior to treatment and not taking into account the present punishment that will be meted out. 

7.  Mr Luk entered mitigation on your behalf.  First of all, he told me that the two reports, that is the probation officer’s background report and the psychological report, had been explained to you and you agreed with those.

8.  Mr Luk referred to how initially you had achieved little academically at school but eventually worked hard and went on to a Bachelor’s degree and then a Master’s degree.  He went on to remind me that your fondness or obsession with the police arose from an incident when you were a young boy in which the police had assisted you when you were lost. 

9.  He referred to the psychological report.  He pointed out that whilst the risk of re-offending was assessed as medium to high, there was a recommendation for treatment, that you were perceived as being remorseful and that the effect of your punishment here would be positive.  Also, and this is important, that you yourself had come to the conclusion that you needed to obtain treatment for your obsession.

10.  Mr Luk then went on to produce six letters. Those letters were from PW1, the victim of this case, that of course is in respect of the 1st charge, one from yourself and the other four were from relatives and friends.  I have read those letters and taken them into account when sentencing you.

11.  In the letter from PW1, it has confirmed what he said in court that he has forgiven you for what you have done, that it is his intention and hope to stand by you and to assist you with your problems which I take it to mean aid with rehabilitation. 

12.  You extend your apologies and you tell me that you have actually written to the Aberdeen Police apologizing for what you did.  

13.  Mr Luk went on to submit that these were non-domestic premises and ask me to impose a light sentence whilst realistically accepting that prison is inevitable in this case.

14.  In mitigation he pointed out that you had not gone equipped with equipment to break and enter, that no damage had been done to any property and nothing had been taken.  In fact, he submitted there were no aggravating features in this case.   He also asked me to consider concurrent sentences on the basis that all three offences were part and parcel of the same course of conduct.  This I take it to mean that all were driven by your same obsession.

15.  He went on to point out that you yourself had no vices such as gambling, that whilst you do have a criminal record, that is very much related to this type of conduct.  He accepted that you do have a previous conviction for burglary in which you stole police uniforms and he accepts that the sentence itself of 60 hours’ community service was very lenient.  He concluded by asking me to be as lenient as I possibly can.

16.  I turn now to the sentence.

17.  I must make the point, to begin with, that I am shocked and appalled that a civilian could so easily gain access to a police facility in this way.  I highly recommend the police they should tighten the security at these premises if that has not been done already and I assume it has been.

18.  I do state the obvious by saying we do live in a dangerous and unstable world, in a world in which authority can be targeted even in a hitherto relatively safe city such as Hong Kong.  Also the poor security served you ill, I say that because had you been prevented from entering into the college, then you could not have committed that second offence.

19.  Moving away from that theme, this is a sad and strange case.  You are a man of intelligence, a man of ability, who worked hard to obtain gainful employment and yet your life is being destroyed by your obsession with the police.   And it would seem that in particular you are obsessed with police uniforms.  It is very difficult to understand and it is clear that you do need some treatment.   

20.  The psychological report is clear and does support my findings that you did intend to steal police uniforms, almost certainly, because I do not believe it was your intention to take personal property of other people because as you are not a common thief.  This is not the usual type of burglary committed by someone driven by poverty, addiction to drugs or addiction to gambling.  This is a burglary committed by a man who is a useful and respected member in the community apart from this problem.

21.  I entirely agree with Mr Luk these are to be sentenced as non-domestic premises, I mean of course in respect of the most serious offence which is Charge 2.  I accept the mitigation that there was no damage done.  There was no attempt for you to break though there was an attempt to enter.  Also I accept this being an attempt, nothing was taken and it is to your credit that when stopped you offered no violence. 

22.  Charge 1, that is the theft, whilst I note that you are forgiven by the victim who was magnanimous in that respect, however, this is a clear breach of trust.  You stole your friend, PW1’s warrant card when he was away from Hong Kong at the time when you resided in his premises under very favourable conditions.  It was a cynical theft in that it was taken specifically with a thought in mind that you would enter into Aberdeen college more easily and be able to escape should you be caught, and that is exactly what happened and hence the 3rd charge. 

23.  Now, I do commend the vigilance and actions of the three recruits.  These are the three young men who observed you, followed you and finally were instrumental in your being detected and apprehended.  And I suggest and ask that commendation be placed upon their records. 

24.  I now turn to individual sentences.

25.  The 2nd charge, that is the one of attempted burglary, has a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment.  However, given the facts and mitigation and the unusual nature of this offence, I do find that that would be unduly harsh.  I make the point that this arose from your obsession and also your ability to enter into premises when you should not have been allowed to go.

26.  Stand up, please.  Charge 1, I take a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 4 for your plea of guilty. 

27.  Charge 2, of course you are not entitled to any discount as you went to trial on that matter.  You will go to prison on that offence for 18 months.  However, that would be served concurrently with the period on Charge 1. 

28.  And in respect of Charge 3, I take a starting point of 1½ months, reduced to 1 month, but that will be served consecutively. That is a total of 19 months’ imprisonment.

29.  And I do ask that on the warrant that there be a suggestion to the Prison Authorities that you be afforded psychological treatment while you are serving your sentence.