HKSAR v. CHENG SAU YUK

DCCC902/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 902 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  I convicted the defendant after trial of three charges of theft.

2.  The defendant was part of a team of professional shoplifters targeting luxury shops.  The identity of the defendant and the other members of her team were only discovered after the police had observed CCTV video recordings of the thefts taking place.

3.  The first offence was committed on 23 October 2010 at Italy Station in Hankow Road, Tsim Sha Tsui.  Although the bag was stolen some time earlier in the day it was not discovered missing until 9 o’clock at night.  The staff discovered a bag worth $13,800 was missing from a display.

4.  The second offence was committed on 4 November 2010.  This was at Chanel on the Ground Floor of Ocean Centre, Harbour City.  A handbag valued at $29,100 was stolen.

5.  On 11 December, at Milan Station on the Ground Floor of South Sea Apartments in Tsim Sha Tsui the defendant and a team of thieves stole a bag worth $13,000.

6.  The defendant has a number of previous court appearances.  All the offences involve dishonesty offences.  There are 15 offences in total, and in 2006/2007, she was sent to prison for 5 years for offences involving credit card frauds.  She was released from that imprisonment in February 2010.

7.  The defendant is 43 years of age, she was educated to Form 5 standard and was working until recently as a saleslady.  I was told that she was earning a basic salary of $5,000 a month but with commission that would be increased to $6,000 or $7,000 per month.  She is married with a 13 year old daughter and lives in a public housing estate.  I am told that her daughter is doing very well at school and a report on her progress at school was available to show that she had obtained Grade A standard in most of her subjects.

8.  Letters from her employers have been produced before the court to say that the defendant is regarded as being responsible, hardworking and reliable.  Also I have had letters produced from religious organisations which mention about the charitable work that she has carried out.

9.  The offences of which the defendant has been convicted are serious offences I have been referred to a number of cases. 

10.  I note that with regard to pickpocketing offences the normal starting point is about 15 months’ imprisonment.  If a defendant has a bad record, that is increased by 9 months, and if the offence occurs in a crowded place it is increased by a further 3 months, making a starting point of 27 months.  Sentences for such offences are sometimes enhanced because of the frequency with which these offences occur in Hong Kong.

11.  In my view, the offences which the defendant has committed must be regarded as at least as serious as those offences.  In essence, the offences which the defendant and her co-accused committed are offences of burglary.  She and the other members of the syndicate had no intention of conducting any legitimate business in these shops.  They entered solely for the purpose of stealing luxury items. 

12.  I had the advantage of viewing the video footage relating to these offences.  The offences are carried out in a very professional manner.  The members of the syndicate move about the shop taking various items from the shelves and pretend to be examine them.  They sometimes group together.  They do not speak to each other or acknowledge each other. Only by careful examination of the video footage can one see the odd nudge between various members of the syndicate. 

13.  The actual thefts are executed very quickly and one has to carefully concentrate on the video footage to see what in fact has happened.  So professional is this group of thieves that they are able to execute the thefts with shop staff standing in close proximity.  The staff are obviously on the alert for thieves but the members of the syndicate are able to distract them from what is really taking place.

14.  It follows from this that these offences are very difficult to detect.  The staff are unaware of the theft until they conduct a stocktake and find that items are missing from the store.  Because of the value of the goods, these stores are equipped with CCTV cameras and clearly an enormous amount of time has to be spent by the police and the staff of the shop going through these various videotapes to see what has happened.

15.  Another aggravating feature as far as this defendant is concerned is that she has 15 previous offences of dishonesty.  I note that most of them relate to credit card thefts, but for her last batch of offences she was sentenced at the end of 2006 and early 2007 to 5 years’ imprisonment.  She was released in February 2010 and within a matter of months she commits the first offence.

16.  I have been shown the judgment relating to the co-accused in this case and in my view the starting points for those defendants do not reflect the criminality involved in this offences nor the criminality of this particular defendant. 

17.  The total value of the goods stolen is $55,900. 

18.  What I propose to do for each of the offences is take a starting point of 2 years.  I order that one year of the sentences on Charges 2 and 3 should run consecutively to the other sentence, so the total sentence will be one of 4 years’ imprisonment.