HKSAR v. TAM YING CHOI

DCCC139/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 139 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant was convicted after trial for one count of burglary.

2.  The facts were that a principal officer of CSD had found cash missing from his wallet twice when he had placed his wallet inside his sleeping quarter while on duty.  He then placed a secret camera inside and eventually captured the defendant’s images of searching his handbag and old wallet.

3.  The defendant was the person in charge of maintaining quarters and had spare keys to the room. I found the defendant had entered the room as a trespasser and did attempt to steal therein.

4.  The defendant aged 48 and had a clear criminal record.  He had served CSD for more than 27 years.  He is divorced and has a son of 14 years old.

5.  From the numerous letters of appreciation from CSD as submitted during trial, no doubt he had all along been a very hardworking and conscientious officer in his service and had since promoted to Assistant Officer I, lastly serving at Pik Uk Correctional Institution and carried the duty of maintenance of officers’ quarters.

6.  I trust that the present offence was quite an out of character act by the defendant, yet as the person in charge keeping spare keys of the quarters, trespassing therein with an intent to steal was serious and clearly in breach of duty imposed by the department, despite the very fact that eventually no property was lost. 

7.  Mr Davies further submitted that there was no aggravating features at all, unlike the usual professional burglary.  It was just a foolish act of taking advantage of the opportunity.

8.  Burglary is a serious offence.  For domestic premises, the usual starting point is 3 years’ imprisonment. It is arguably the sleeping quarters may not be the usual domestic premises envisaged.  The starting point may then be lowered to 2½ years for non-domestic one.

9.  The serious side of this case was of course the breach of trust scenario as the person on duty of keeping the spare keys and in charge of maintaining the quarters.  Nobody could imagine, expect or take any precautionary measures against someone in his capacity who would go in others room and attempt to steal therein. 

10.  It was an unfortunate event that the defendant, who had used to be such a commendable officer, had to face an imprisonment term of what he had committed.  No doubt his conviction would bring to an end his career as well as all the incidental benefits.

11.  Taking into account his good character, the nature of the offence and the background, I assess that an imprisonment term of 20 months would be an appropriate sentence in the present case. 

12.  I therefore sentence him to 20 months’ imprisonment for the burglary offence.