HKSAR v PUJI LESTARI

DCCC 1179 /2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1179 OF 2011

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Burglary".

Summary of Facts

2.  SRI Wahyuni (PW1) resided at the public housing unit in Tung Chung as particularized in the charge.  The defendant was employed by PW1 as a domestic helper from 12 July to 27 August 2011.  Before she left PW1's home on 27 August 2011, the defendant returned the keys to the flat to PW1 but left her luggage there.  On 1 September 2011, PW1 began to employ WIWIT (PW2) as her new domestic helper.

3.  On 2 September 2011, PW1 left home at 2:00 pm leaving PW2 alone at home.  About 3:40 pm, the defendant went to PW1's home telling PW2 that she was PW1's ex-employee and that she wanted to pick up her luggage.  PW2 allowed the defendant to enter.  After picking up her luggage, the defendant told PW2 that she could lead her to the nearby market.  PW2 agreed and left home together with the defendant.

4.  Upon arriving at the market, the defendant parted with PW2.  PW2 shopped by herself in the market and returned home about 4:30 pm.

5.  After returning home, PW1 discovered her camera set (which was placed on a table in the living room) missing.  The camera set consists of 1 camera, 2 lenses, 1 battery, 1 memory card, some other accessories, 1 box and 1 bag; PW1 purchased it in July 2011 and it is worth $13,000.  She last saw it at noon on 2 September 2011.

6.  Having been informed of the defendant's visit by PW2, PW1 phoned the defendant to ask her about the camera set.  The defendant denied having taken it.  PW1 reported the matter to the Police.

7.  On 4 September 2011, PW1's husband located the defendant in Sham Shui Po and alerted the Police.  The defendant was arrested.  Duplicate keys to PW1's home were found on the defendant.  Under caution, she claimed that she knew nothing about the incident.

8.  In her subsequent cautioned interviews, the defendant admitted that about 4:00 pm on 2 September 2011, she gained entry into PW1's home using the duplicate keys.  She then took away the camera set and brought it to a trading company in Tsim Sha Tsui for storage.  The defendant claimed that she had no intention to sell the camera set; she intended to talk to PW1 on 5 September 2011 but was arrested by the Police on 4 September 2011.

9.  The defendant later led the Police to a trading company in Tsim Sha Tsui.  The proprietor of the shop recognized the defendant for leaving the camera set at his shop for storage pending shipment. The defendant pointed out the camera set to the Police and admitted under caution that she had stolen it from PW1's home.  PW1 also identified the same camera set as her property.

Mitigation & Sentence

10.  The defendant is now 28 and has a clear record.  She came to Hong Kong in July 2009 to work as a domestic helper.

11.  Mr. HO submitted that the defendant has made full and frank admissions.  She was also cooperative with the Police by taking them to the trading company to retrieve the camera set.  Mr. HO explained that the defendant had mistakenly believed that the camera set belongs to PW1's husband and that she took the camera set in order to take revenge against him because he has been treating her badly. When the defendant discovered that the camera set in fact belongs to PW1, she felt sorry and it was already too late.

12.  The normal starting point for domestic burglary is 3 years imprisonment.  I accept that the defendant may not be a typical criminal; she might have foolishly resorted to illegal means to express her dissatisfaction against PW1's husband.  On the other hand, an element of breach of trust is clearly involved, which is an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing.  I also note that the camera set has been retrieved. The defendant did not sell it for money; neither the proprietor of the trading company nor PW1 had suffered any financial loss.

13.  Based on the reasons stated above, I am prepared to adopt the usual starting point of 3 years.  One-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 2 years.  Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  The sentence I impose is therefore 2 years imprisonment.