HKSAR v. VALLESPIN VANESSA LAURIA

DCCC 411/2025

[2026] HKDC 125

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 411 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty before me to 3 charges.

2.  Charge 1 and Charge 2 are both charges of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. Charge 3 is a charge of knowingly misleading a police officer by giving false information, contrary to section 64(b)  of the Police Force Ordinance, Cap. 232.

3.  Charge 1 alleges that, on the 2^nd day of December, 2024, the defendant at a house at Hereford Road, Kowloon, stole a watch belonging to a Mr. Lau (some particulars are omitted for privacy reasons).

4.  Charge 2 alleges that, on the 4^th day of December, 2024, the defendant at the same house as referred to in Charge 1, stole 9 watches belonging to the same Mr. Lau.

5.  Charge 3 alleges that, on the 4^th day of December, 2024, at Hung Hom Police Station, the defendant, knowingly misled a police officer, namely Police Constable 26984, by giving false information, namely that the house referred to in Charges 1 and 2 had been burgled by unknown persons.

6.  At all material times, the defendant, who is a Filipino by nationality, was a domestic helper working at a house situated at Hereford Road, Kowloon Tong.  Her employers were Mr. Lau and his wife (whose maiden name was Ng).  The house was the residence of the Lau family.  It consists of three storeys and a rooftop.  There is a door between the third floor and the rooftop.

7.  At about 1:22 p.m. on 4^th December 2024, Mrs. Lau (hereinafter Madam Ng for simplicity)  received a video-call from the defendant telling her that she had found that a drawer in the master bedroom which Mr. Lau had been using to keep his luxurious watches was open.  By way of a live video the defendant showed Madam Ng the situation.  She also told Madam Ng that it had come to her notice that the door leading to the rooftop was unlocked by someone. 

8.  Upon hanging up the phone, Madam Ng returned home immediately.

9.  Some time later, Mr. Lau also returned home.

10.  The couple conducted a check in their master bedroom.  They found that a total of 10 watches belonging to Mr. Lau went missing.  The total value of those 10 watches was HK$799,780 (hereinafter all amounts are to be stated in Hong Kong currency).  They were all of famous brands such as Rolex, Cartier, Tudor, Frank Muller and the like; and the most expensive one among them was a Rolex Daytona worth about $220,000.

11.  Mr. Lau reported the case to the police.  Later in the same afternoon police arrived at the house and conducted an investigation on suspicion that the house was burgled.  Police not only retrieved CCTV footages but also searched for possible DNA evidence.

12.  Police also took a witness statement from the defendant.

13.  In the statement, the defendant told the police that in the morning that day she was on the rooftop doing laundry.  After that she left the rooftop and closed the rooftop door without locking it.  She remembered that some time earlier when she was cleaning the master bedroom she saw that all the drawers therein were closed.  She went on to say that, at around noon time she was away from the house to pick up a young son of the family, who was a primary school student.  At about 12:30 p.m., she returned to the house, yet she heard some door closing sound coming from the rooftop area.  She immediately went up to the rooftop, where she found that the rooftop door was opened.  When she went to the master bedroom to have a look she found that the master bedroom door and the drawers were all opened.  Basically she portrayed to the police a picture of the house having been burgled.

14.  However, the police’s investigation revealed that there was no trace of any suspicious person ever entering or leaving the house.  Police suspected that the defendant was the culprit, and therefore invited her to the police station for enquiries.

15.  In the evening on the following day, namely 5^th December 2024, police arrested the defendant for an offence of theft.  Under caution, the defendant apologized and said, amongst other things, words to the effect that she needed money to help her friend, and therefore she stole the watches.

16.  In the same evening police escorted the defendant back to the house.  Upon police’s enquiry, she voluntarily pointed out to the police a flowerbed in the garden where she kept the stolen watches.  Police recovered 9 of the stolen watches from a black bag. However, one of the watches, which was the aforesaid Rolex Daytona, had then yet to be recovered.

17.  On 6^th December 2024, police conducted a video-recorded interview with the defendant.  She made a confession under caution.  In gist, she said she had a friend whose name was Maryanne.  Maryanne wanted to work in Albania, yet she did not have enough money to arrange transportation for her trip; and Maryanne could not secure a loan because she was already in debt.  The defendant said that, in order to help Maryanne she therefore secured a loan herself and gave the money to Maryanne. However she lost contact with Maryanne after she went off to Albania. The defendant had no money to repay her lender, and in the end decided to steal the watches in question.

18.  In the interview, the defendant also said under caution that she first stole the Rolex Daytona on 2^nd December 2024, and later stole the other 9 watches on 4^th December 2024.  She claimed that she was nervous when she was asked by the police to give a witness statement in the beginning when police came to the house to investigate, and so she gave some wrong information.

19.  The defendant also told the police that the Rolex Daytona was kept in a dormitory in Central serving Filipino domestic helpers.  At a later time she led the police to the dormitory and recovered the watch.

20.  Mr. Yung, counsel for the defendant, put forward the defendant’s plea in mitigation by way of written and oral submissions.  I first mention the defendant’s background.

21.  The defendant is 40 years of age.  She has a clear record.

22.  As mentioned, she is a Filipino national who came to Hong Kong in August 2022 to work as a domestic helper for the Lau family.  At the time of the offences she was in her second contract with the family.  Her then monthly salary was $4,870.

23.  She was a graduate from a high school in the Philippines.  She has never married, yet she has 3 children as a result of her prior relationship with her ex-boyfriend.  All her family members are residing in the Philippines.  Her eldest child is an adult, who is working as a manual worker, whereas the other two children are teenagers pursuing their studies at school.

24.  The defendant’s father is a farmer and her mother a housewife. Given the family structure and situation, the defendant has a heavy financial burden on her shoulders.

25.  In regard to the reason underlying commission of the offences, Mr. Yung told this court that the defendant maintained the version that she gave in her interview with the police.  Mr. Yung added that, the defendant also had a desire to work in Albania, because she heard that a domestic helper there could earn as much as $9,000 a month.  Therefore, when Maryanne asked her to secure a loan of $30,000 from a moneylender she was more than happy to help.   She got a promise from Maryanne that, once she settled down in Albania she would help with the defendant’s application for employment as a domestic helper in Albania.  She also believed Maryanne would repay the loan.  Nevertheless she lost contact with Maryanne soon after she left.  She was the one to repay the debt.  She used her own money to repay $10,000, but could hardly repay the remaining $20,000.  She had no other method and could only think of stealing her employer’s properties.

26.  Counsel referred to a letter written by the defendant herself and the Chaplain Priest who has seen the defendant.  It was said in the letters that the defendant has reflected on the mistake she made and has a genuine remorse for her wrongdoings.  The Chaplain Priest has specifically mentioned that he believed the defendant committed the offences because of poor judgment rather than out of malice to her employers. 

27.  Counsel invited this court to take into account the following mitigating circumstances:

(a)  The defendant entered a timely plea at the first opportunity;

(b)  The defendant gave a full confession to the police as soon as she was arrested and cautioned;

(c)  All along she was co-operating with the police; she led the police to recover all the stolen watches;

(d)  Mr. Lau suffered no loss;

(e)  The offences were committed within a space of two to three days; and

(f)  Despite the fact that at one time the defendant did give misleading information to the police, never did she point at someone else being the burglar, and hence no actual wasteful deployment of the police was caused.

28.  Counsel further told this court that the defendant’s employment with the Lau family has already been terminated.  It is not possible for her to work in Hong Kong anymore, because it is unlikely that the Immigration Department would grant her a new work visa given her conviction for these offences.  The defendant’s family members in the Philippines also suffer financially, because the defendant can no longer remit money to them.

29.  Counsel agreed that the theft offences involved a breach of trust. Nevertheless counsel submitted that the defendant’s criminality brings her to, or somewhere close to, the lower end of the spectrum in terms of the sentencing guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Cheung Mee Kiu [2006] 4 HKLRD 776 and HKSAR v Ng Kwok Wing [2008] 4 HKLRD 1017.

30.  I accept most of the submissions put forward by counsel.  The only thing I disagree is the saying that the defendant did not cause wasteful deployment of the police.  It is true that there is no evidence that police have ever taken arrest actions against any suspect other than the defendant; however such does not mean that police did not deploy manpower and resources to conduct investigations into the matter.  As revealed by the facts, police did attend the house to investigate, retrieve CCTV footages and search for possible forensic evidence.

31.  In Ng Kwok Wing, the Court of Appeal has devised the sentencing tariffs by reference to the value of the stolen property.  According to the guidelines, if the value of the stolen property falls within the range of $250,000 to $1 million, the starting point should be 2 to 3 years’ imprisonment; and if the value of the stolen property is under $250,000, the starting point should be not more than 2 years’ imprisonment.

32.  As stated in the summary of facts, the Rolex Daytona, which is the subject matter of Charge 1, was worth about $220,000, whilst the other nine watches, which are the subject matters of Charge 2, were worth $579,780.

33.  I have given consideration to all the circumstances.

34.  In relation to Charge 1, I adopt a starting point of 21 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant has entered a timely plea.  She is entitled to a full one-third discount.  The sentence for Charge 1 is one of 14 months’ imprisonment.

35.  In relation to Charge 2, I adopt a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment.  After giving the defendant a full one-third discount, the sentence for Charge 2 is one of 18 months’ imprisonment.

36.  The total value of all 10 watches was about $799,780.  I would think that, if all 10 watches are particularized in one single charge, the sentence to be passed on the defendant should be one of 33 months’ imprisonment after trial, or 22 months on a guilty plea.

37.  I consider that the combined sentence for Charges 1 and 2 should be one of 22 months’ imprisonment.  In order that this result be achieved, I order 8 months of the sentence for Charge 2 to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1 (14 + 8).

38.  There is no sentencing guideline for the offence of knowingly misleading a police officer by giving false information.  But imprisonment is the norm, and a term of 2 to 3 months’ imprisonment is not uncommon.

39.  In relation to Charge 3, I adopt a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment.  After giving the defendant a one-third discount, the sentence is one of 2 months’ imprisonment.

40.  Misleading a police officer is an offence entirely distinct from the theft offences.  As a matter of principle, the sentence for Charge 3 should be served consecutively to that for Charges 1 and 2.  Nevertheless, giving consideration to the mitigation advanced, I would only order 1 month of the sentence for Charge 3 to run consecutively to the combined sentence for Charges 1 and 2. 

41.  The overall sentence I pass on the defendant is 23 months’ imprisonment.