HKSAR v. LAM TSZ KAI

DCCC1226/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1226 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of theft. He stole some equipment used in construction and renovation, such as electric drills, grinding machine, electric wire, nail puncher, hydraulic drill and some electric screwdrivers.

2.  The defendant is aged 26.  At the time he was in Hong Kong employed by a person described as the second prosecution witness, Mr Cheung.  He is a contractor in respect of various renovation works on flats in Causeway Bay and the defendant was employed on that work.  

3.  The offence occurred on 11 September 2011.  The defendant had been fired by PW2 on 10 September 2011 and the victim, who is the first prosecution witness, had stored his renovation tools in one of the flats. The defendant returned to these flats on 11 September to collect some things and one of the things he did do was take the renovation equipment belonging to PW1, and this was discovered to be missing on 14 September. 

4.  The value attributed to these goods was $5,600. The defendant, I am told in mitigation, sold these items to a scrap metal dealer and then went to the Mainland.  He was arrested on 3 October 2011 when he returned from the Mainland and has been in custody ever since.     

5.  The defendant’s antecedents are admitted.  He is of clear record.  He studied originally in Hong Kong primary schools and then into secondary school.  At the age of 16, he appears to have gone to the United Kingdom and studied there between 2002 and 2009.  He had returned sometime after 2009 to Hong Kong and worked in an office and also as a decoration worker. 

6.  The defendant’s background has been more fully explained in mitigation.  His parents had divorced and, at some point, his mother and two sisters went to the United Kingdom.  The defendant was aged 16 at that time.  He spent seven years in the United Kingdom.  Due to some conflict, he returned to Hong Kong.  In Hong Kong his elder sister lives here.

7.  He is remorseful for taking the items and his family have put forward two possible resolutions for him in the future. Members of his family have written letters to the court and expressed their support for him and expressed their proposals for how his future will unfold.           

8.  One proposal I have is that he would, on his release from custody, return to the United Kingdom to live with his mother, and the defendant would study there.  That appears to be the preferred option.  The other option is he remains in Hong Kong, lives with his sister and continues to work for PW2, who says he would take him back. 

9.  It would appear to me that the defendant’s better option would be to go with the broader family support he has in the United Kingdom and return there, especially given that members of his family are here today, having come all the way to support him in this hearing, which shows to me a high level of commitment from them and a great desire in them to assist him in the future.

10.  I have to consider the best approach for sentencing in this case.  The defendant is of clear record.  He has committed an offence of theft in circumstances where he has, to certain extent, breached the trust of the people who employed him.  A sentence of imprisonment is certainly an option in a case such as this.  

11.  There are certain other options that the court could consider in this case.  One especially would be to obtain reports to see if the defendant would be suitable for Community Service Order.  However, were the defendant to return to the United Kingdom, that would not be an option that would be available, and I am going to proceed on the basis that the defendant will be doing that, and that his period of imprisonment will have acted as a sufficient deterrent to him to prevent him re-offending should he decide to remain in Hong Kong. 

12.  Overall, I consider that in this case my best option is to impose a sentence of imprisonment on the defendant.  Given the fact that this case involved a breach of trust, certainly in that he had been able to exploit his relationship with PW2 to enter the building and take the goods of people who were also working there, I consider that a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment is appropriate.  I will reduce that to 6 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty and that is the sentence that I will impose.