HKSAR v. REODIQUE JULIUS JR RECTA

DCCC335/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 335 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

The Charge and the Facts

1. The Defendant was originally charged with one count of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. He pleaded not guilty to that charge but guilty to the charge of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Ordinance. The prosecution accepted the Defendant’s plea and the Defendant was accordingly convicted of theft.

2. The Summary of Facts admitted by the Defendant disclosed that at about 7:30 pm on 20 February 2011, the Defendant, together with another man, were looking at a showcase outside a jewellery shop located in Tsim Sha Tsui. Shortly afterwards, the Defendant approached PW1, who was working in the shop at that time, and requested to have a look at some pearl earrings displayed in the showcase. PW1 therefore unlocked the showcase and took out a tray of earrings for examination by the Defendant. PW1, however, forgot to take away the key from the lock of the showcase.

3. Having viewed the earrings for about 5 minutes, the Defendant then asked his male companion to enter the shop. While PW1 was answering the Defendant’s questions, he saw the Defendant’s companion opening the showcase. PW1 immediately shouted at the male but the male ignored him and reached his hand into the showcase. When PW1 tried to rush forward to stop the male, the Defendant blocked his way. Despite that, PW1 managed to grab hold of the male’s shoulder. The Defendant, however, pushed PW1’s chest forcefully, causing PW1 to move backward. The male then fled. The Defendant lost balance himself when he attempted to leave the shop. PW1 then closed the door immediately and called the police.

4. After checking, PW1 confirmed that a diamond ring and a pair of diamond earrings valued at HK$160,000 in total were taken away by the male.

Mitigation

5. The Defendant was born in the Philippines and is married with two sons. He is now aged 34. At the time of the offence, the Defendant was a visitor and he arrived in Hong Kong on 16 February 2011 with permission to stay for 14 days. He does not have any criminal conviction record here.

6. The Defendant was educated up to higher school level and was said to be a merchant in the Philippines.

7. In mitigation, it was said that the Defendant met his accomplice after arriving in Hong Kong. The twin then agreed that should an opportunity arise, they would steal from shops. That was what they did on the day in question. Mr. Loughran acting for the Defendant submitted that only minimal force was used in the whole incident, and that was when the Defendant pushed PW1 backwards, trying to stop PW1 from chasing after his accomplice. Afterwards, the Defendant did not resist further and did not employ any violence when he was trapped inside the shop. The reason for the commission of the offence, it was said, was because the Defendant was in need of money as his wife was pregnant.

8. It was urged upon the court that a most lenient sentence be imposed in view of the facts of this case and that the Defendant has pleaded guilty.

Sentencing Considerations

9. There is no tariff for this type of general theft. However, I take as aggravating factors the following : firstly, the Defendant was a visitor at the time of the offence. He arrived on 16 February 2011. Yet, just 4 days later, he committed this offence together with his accomplice. People who deliberately come to Hong Kong to commit offences should be deterred. In the present case, I have no doubt that the Defendant is one of those who enter Hong Kong in order to make quick profits by engaging themselves in criminal activities here for, otherwise, there was no reason for the Defendant to be involved in the present offence, together with another person, so shortly after his arrival. Based on the facts admitted, there was certain degree of planning. The two of them must have discussed as to how to approach PW1, who to do what, and when to take the properties. They could not have committed the offence simply on the spur of the moment.

10. Next, there were the two of them acting together and, a total of HK$160,000 worth of jewellery was taken away. I also cannot lose sight of the fact that, in this case, the theft was committed in a jewellery shop when the Defendant gained entry by using the pretext of making a purchase. In addition, while the force was very little, it remains a fact that the Defendant was the one who used force to push PW1 away, thus stopping PW1 from pursuing the Defendant’s accomplice.

The Sentence

11. Taking into account all the relevant facts and the aggravating factors identified, I consider a starting point of 2 years to be appropriate. The Defendant pleaded guilty and he will be given a one-third reduction for his plea. Other than that, I do not see any other factors which would warrant any further reduction in sentence.

12. I therefore impose a term of 16 months on the Defendant for this theft charge.