HKSAR v. LEUNG CHUN KONG

DCCC 1234/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.1234 OF 2009

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant faces one amended charge of theft, contrary to s.9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. It is alleged that the defendant on 22^nd June 2009, at Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited, Room 711, 7^th floor, Bank of China Tower, No.1 Garden Road, Central stole one notebook computer belonging to Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited.

2.  The defendant pleaded guilty, admitted to the amended facts and was duly convicted.

Facts

3.  The defendant was an office assistant employed by an accounting firm responsible for the delivery of documents. PW1, the deputy General Manager of Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited started working at 9am on 22^nd June in his office at the charge location. Pw1 left the room at 12:15pm, closing the door without locking it. When he returned at 12:35pm he found his notebook computer missing. Enquiries were made with his colleagues but the computer could not be found. A report was made to the security manager of the bank who reviewed CCTV recordings and noticed a male who had followed other staff into 7^th floor of the building. That same male took a lift to descend to 3^rd floor at 12:25pm.

4.  A report was made to the police. Upon investigation, the defendant was arrested at his residence on 4^th October. The defendant admitted under caution that he stole PW1’s computer. The defendant admitted in the cautioned interview that on 22^nd June he went to the Bank of China Tower to deliver documents and he followed staff members thereat to enter 7^th floor. When he found pw1’s office unattended, he took the notebook computer out of momentary greed. The defendant brought the computer home, but it stopped working very soon. The defendant then handed the computer to his younger brother PW3 for repair. PW3 did not know that the computer was stolen property.

Previous convictions

5.  The defendant has a clear record.

Mitigation

6.  A very helpful mitigation bundle was submitted to the court beforehand. The salient points of mitigation are that the defendant had from time to time made deliveries to the bank it was an opportunistic crime and that the computer had been found.

7.  The defendant is 26. As a result of this incident, the defendant has lost his job and is working part time in the kitchen of a fast food chain, earning $18 per hour. The defendant suffers from congenital heart disease, he underwent surgery about 7 years ago and is still receiving follow up treatment.

8.  Various letters of mitigation were also submitted, being from the defendant’s father, his primary, secondary school and university teachers and church leader, all testifying to the character of the defendant.

Sentence

9.  This was an opportunistic crime when the defendant gave in to a greedy impulse and took the computer. Having seen the contents of the report and bearing in mind all the positive things said on behalf of the defendant by his friends, former colleagues, teachers, priest and family and the fact that the computer had been recovered and the victim did not suffer any loss, I find that this is a proper case to deal with the defendant by way of a community service order.

10.  Taking into consideration the recommendation of the probation officer, I will order the defendant to 180 hours of community service. The defendant has been warned that should he chooses not to comply properly with the order, he will be brought back before me and I will deal with him with much less leniency.