HKSAR v. SRITHANATHAM SIRIPHORN

 DCCC644/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 644 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of burglary. On 10 April, she entered a domestic premises in Shanghai Street, stole some jewellery and some cash. Defendant is a Thai national married to a Hong Kong resident and has been living in Hong Kong for some time. At the time of her arrest, she was unemployed but previously had been working as a waitress. Defendant has a clear record in Hong Kong.

2.  The facts of this case differ from the usual domestic‑premises burglary. Sadly, she burgled her friend’s home. She has abused the friendship of a fellow Thai who is also living in Hong Kong. They met in 2009 and became good friends. Before the burglary, defendant was a frequent visitor at the victim’s home.

3.  One day in early April this year, the victim proudly showed the defendant her jewellery and valuables. Defendant decided to steal them. This is how she did it. A few days later, whilst at the victim’s home, she stole the victim’s husband’s house key. He had left it on the television but he noticed it had gone missing. The victim, her husband and the defendant searched the premises for the key but could not find it. Not long later, the defendant told the victim she was going out to buy some fruit, but came back 15 minutes later empty-handed. She clearly had the key copied.

4.  Some 15 minutes later, she returns, pretends to find the key for the victim’s husband under the furniture. The very next day, she invites the victim out to go shopping. She makes sure the victim has gone out and enters her home. A neighbour saw her. When the victim returned home, the valuables she had shown the defendant were missing. The defendant was arrested that evening. By then, in the space of a few hours, she had already sold all the victim’s gold jewellery.

5.  When she was arrested, 20‑odd thousand dollars was found on her. She told the police that she wanted the money to go back to Thailand to see her parents. She admitted the offence to the police. She told the police she was silly.

6.  “Silly” is not an appropriate word for such a serious offence. She saw an opportunity to steal some valuables, actually saw the plan through and abused the trust of her friend.

7.  I have heard full mitigation today, and I repeat her best mitigation is her plea of guilty. Her husband is in court today to support her. The victim and her family are here today. She is here to collect full restitution. Today, defence counsel asks the victim if she has forgiven the defendant, and she says yes and is willing to ask the court for leniency on her behalf.

8.  Now, burglary of domestic premises is serious whatever the facts, and it has been said time and time again that a 3‑year starting point would be appropriate for a first offender where there are no aggravating or mitigating factors. And I have considered the facts of this case, the value of the items stolen, the fact that full restitution can be made. I have also considered mitigation put forward on behalf of the defendant. In addition, the defendant is a woman of clear record.

9.  In view of all these factors, I will take a lower starting point than usual. I will take a starting point, instead of 3 years, one of 2 years and 6 months. Defendant is entitled to a discount for her plea today of one-third. That is a discount of 10 months. After the discount is deducted, the defendant for this offence is sentenced to 1 year and 8 months.