HKSAR v. TSE TAT KWAN

DCCC 1009/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1009 OF 2013

____________

____________

______________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

______________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Burglary". He burgled the warehouse of his former employer.

Summary of Facts

2.  The defendant is a former salesman of a fashion company "Massimo Dutti" ("the Company").  His last day of duty was 29 June 2013.

3.  The Company had a warehouse located at Flat 1502, 15^th Floor, Chinachem Tower, Nos.34-37 Connaught Road Central ("the Warehouse").  Chinachem Tower is a 23-storey commercial building.  The Warehouse was secured by a digital lock, the password of which was made known to all staff members of the Company including the defendant.  Only current employees were allowed to enter the Warehouse.

4.  About 10:35 pm on 31 July 2013, Mr. KAN (PW1), a staff member of the Company, arrived at the Warehouse for stock-taking.  Upon entry, he saw the defendant holding a black "Chanel" paper bag ("the Chanel Bag").  Another black bag ("the Black Bag") and several pieces of company garment were scattered on the floor.  PW1 recognized the defendant as a former colleague who was laid off recently.  The defendant told PW1 that he came back to return his uniform.

5.  A few minutes later, PW1 heard some door-closing sound and immediately went to the door.  He discovered that the defendant, the Black Bag and the company garment on the floor were all missing.  PW1 reported the matter to his supervisor Mr. HO.  The defendant soon returned with empty hands asking PW1 how he should return his uniform.

6.  PW1 told the defendant that he must return his uniform to a manager at the Company's retail store and requested to inspect his bags.  The defendant ignored PW1.  He placed his uniform in the staff locker which was assigned to him and then left.

7.  PW1 chased after the defendant and alerted the security guard.  PW1 looked at the CCTV and found the defendant in one of the elevators.  When the defendant reached the Ground Floor, he was holding the Black Bag and the Chanel Bag, both bulging with company garment inside.

8.  When PW1 was calling the Police, the defendant fled and took the elevator to the 23^rd Floor.  About 5 to 10 minutes later, the defendant returned to the Ground Floor.  When he came out of the elevator, the Black Bag and the Chanel Bag were empty.

9.  Later, the Police found 10 pieces of garment and 4 pairs of shoes, all of which belonged to the Company ("the Stolen Properties") at the staircase leading to the roof of Chinachem Tower.  The total retail price of the Stolen Properties was $14,540.

10.  The defendant was arrested for "Burglary".  Under caution, he admitted that he committed the offence out of momentary greed.  In his video recorded interview, the defendant admitted that he entered the Warehouse using the password given to him.  He used the Chanel Bag and the Black Bag to take away some company garment.  The Stolen Properties were intended for himself, his mother and his girlfriend.

Mitigation & Sentence

11. The defendant is now 22 and has a clear record. Defence lawyer Mr. WONG informed me that the defendant comes from a broken family. His parents were divorced when he was young and his father has left the family since. I was also informed that the defendant's mother is a long-term mental patient. Despite all these hardships, the defendant managed to complete his secondary education and started working to support himself and his mother.

12. Mr. WONG submitted that the defendant was recruited by the Company as a part-time salesman in September 2012 earning $40 per hour. The defendant felt that working part-time would enable him to look after his mother. Having worked in the Company for 9 months, the defendant was laid off in June 2013. However, until today, he still has not received any formal termination notice. The Company simply stopped giving him his duty roster at the end of June. Mr. WONG submitted that at the time of committing the offence, the defendant had mixed emotions. There were anger, stupidity, greed and dishonesty; he was also naive and immature.

13. I am aware of the defendant's age and clear record. His situation does warrant some sympathy. On the other hand, in addition to its non-domestic burglary nature, this case clearly involves an element of breach of trust; an immediate custodial sentence is inevitable.

14. I will adopt the normal starting point of 2.5 years' imprisonment. A one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 20 months. I will grant a further reduction of 2 months to reflect the defendant's personal circumstances and the fact that all Stolen Properties were recovered. Hence, the sentence I pass is 18 months' imprisonment.

15. There is nothing more I can do within my powers, except to order a welfare visit of the defendant's mother by the Probation Officer. This, I will do now, making sure that someone is there to look after her, financially and medically.