HKSAR v. MARAMBA ROWENA QUILANG

HCMA 1003/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1003 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM WSCC 5659/2000)

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The appellant was convicted after trial of stealing a necklace belonging to a woman for whom she worked as a domestic helper, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

2. The employer gave evidence of the necklace going missing and of her later seeing the appellant wearing it. At first the appellant said to the employer and then the police that the necklace had been given to her by her aunt. Later on she changed her account and said that the necklace had been given to her by another domestic helper at a time when they were both working for the employer in the same flat. This was the account she gave in the witness-box.

3. The Magistrate, Miss Katherine Lo, felt sure that the truth was as told by the other domestic helper who denied giving the necklace to the appellant. I can find no flaw in the Magistrate's approach to the evidence, so I cannot disturb that finding. Nor can I find any flaw in the Magistrate's reasoning that the only reasonable inference on the facts which she found was that the appellant had stolen the necklace.

4. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

5. As to sentence, the necklace was valued at $75,000.00, and the Magistrate was entitled to view the case as a serious one involving a breach of trust. The sentence which she passed is not one which I can properly disturb. The appeal against sentence is also dismissed.