HKSAR v. TUCKER MOONA CHRISTIE SIU (also known as TUCKER MOONA CHRISTINE SIU)

DCCC 752/2024

[2025] HKDC 1177

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 752 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Introduction

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. I found her guilty as charged after she admitted the Summary of Facts.

The Facts

2.  Facts admitted by the defendant disclosed that PW1 resided at Flat B, 4^th Floor, No 78 Woosung Street, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon, Hong Kong (the “Premises”).  On 7 February 2024, at around 2:07 pm, PW1 last checked his property in the Premises and secured the door before leaving.

3.  From 3:08 pm to 5:37 pm on the same day, PW1 received a number of mobile phone notifications that someone had used three of his electronic devices, namely, (i)  “Huawei” MatePad Pro electronic tablet (Value: HK$3,300)  (Colour: black)  with the “abc Mobile” sim card; (ii)  “Huawei” Mate 10 Pro mobile phone (Value: HK$4,900)  (Colour: navy); and (iii)  Huawei Mate 20 Pro mobile phone (Value: HK$5,000)  (Colour: black)  (collectively referred to as the “Devices”), to log into his personal accounts with “Google” and “Huawei”.  PW1 therefore logged into a mobile application called “Tradingview” which could monitor the application activities across his electronic devices.  PW1 discovered that there were records of the mobile application being logged into by others using the Devices.

4.  At around 6:20 pm, PW1 returned to the Premises and discovered that the Devices went missing.  The Devices were originally placed on the same desk at the Premises.  The total value of the stolen property was HK$13,200.  The case was then reported to the police.

5.  Photographs of the door of the Premises showed that there was a prize mark at the door frame while there was no sign of ransacking inside the Premises.

6.  Upon investigation, on 15 February 2024, the defendant, who was wearing a pair of blue slippers (Exhibit 4)  and an ankle bracelet (Exhibit 3)  and was carrying a pink reusable bag (Exhibit 5), was intercepted and arrested by PC15171 (“PW2”)  for “Burglary”.  Exhibit 1 and a “Huawei” mobile phone (Exhibit 6)  with two sim cards (Exhibits 8-9)  and a Micro SD card (Exhibit 7)  were found in Exhibit 5 and were seized from the defendant.  Under caution in punti dialect, the defendant said in punti dialect “I have no money, very poor.  As I saw the door was unlocked, I went in and stole two devices.  Please give me a chance”.

7.  Upon PW2’s enquiries, the defendant said in Punti dialect inter alia that the pad (ie Exhibit 1)  inside her bag (ie Exhibit 5)  was stolen from the Premises but the “Huawei” mobile phone (ie Exhibit 6)  belonged to herself.  Later on the same day, the cautioned statements were post-recorded by PW2 in the presence of a Chinese-English interpreter and the defendant signed the relevant certificates.

8.  On 15 February 2024, between 10:31 pm and 10:40 pm, the defendant was interviewed by DPC 60823 in a video-recorded interview.  Under caution, the defendant  asserted inter alia the following in Punti dialect:

(a)  The defendant went to the building at No.78 Woosung Street at the material times to look for a friend. She later discovered that the door of the Premises was unlocked and therefore she entered into the Premises and stole two devices. Exhibit 1, which was contained inside the defendant’s pink bag, was seized by Police upon arrest while the other stolen mobile phone was sold by her for HK$200 to a store in Sham Shui Po. The defendant denied stealing a further mobile phone.

(b)  The defendant confirmed that she was wearing the ankle bracelet and the pair of slippers at the time of committing the offence.

Background and Criminal Record

9.  The defendant is a British National and is now aged 40.  She was educated up to Form 5 level at the ESF South Island School.  She is married in 2022 but had been residing with her husband for 13 years prior to the marriage.  The defendant has 3 children two boys aged 18 years and 21 years and a girl aged 11 years.  The boy’s father is a Hong Kong resident however he and the defendant parted company when both the boys were very young.  He does not support the two boys.  The two boys are cared for by the defendant’s mother who is 72 years old.  The defendant’s daughter is studying in Hong Kong at Primary 6 level and will take a position at a secondary school in Hong Kong in September 2025.  She lives in a hostel in Shek Kip Mei.

10.  Prior to the offence the defendant worked part time as a sandwich maker at a subway sandwich shop earning HKD$6,000-7,000 per month.

11.  The defendant, prior to this offence, was living in rented accommodation costing HKD$4,000.  She had applied for government housing which as yet, has not been granted.

12.  The defendant is not a woman of clear record.  She has been before the court on 10 previous occasions with 11 convictions, of which 1 of those convictions is similar conviction for burglary.  She has a further 5 offences related to dishonesty, making a total of 6 offences out of 11 related to dishonesty.  The last appearance was in June 2023 for gambling in a gambling establishment when she was fined $2,500.

Mitigation

13.  Mr Turnbull, Counsel for the defendant , provided me with his written submission for mitigation.  In mitigation, he submitted that the defendant entered a building to visit a friend but had gone to the wrong building.  She saw a door unlocked in one of the premises in the building.  She entered the premises and stole therein the two mobile phones and a tablet computer.  One of the mobile phones was later, sold by the defendant.  The defendant had a very low income making it difficult for her to survive and committed the offence for financial gain.

14.  With regard to the sentence for the offence, Mr Turnbull urged me to consider the following factors, namely:

(a)  Plea of guilty at the first available opportunity;

(b)  Remorseful for her behaviour as evidenced by the acceptance of full responsibility for the crime;

(c)  Burglary did not occur at night, the premises were unoccupied, and no force was used to gain entry;

(d)  Offence committed in an amateurish manner and the value of the property stolen was relatively small;

(e)  The computer tablet stolen was recovered; and

(f)  She is worried for the welfare of her daughter and wants to be able to live and care for her as soon as possible.

15.  In light of all these matters, Mr Turnbull asked for leniency from the court for the defendant and also drew my attention to the following cases: R v Chan Yui Man, CACC 36/1988; HKSAR v Lau Pang [2004] 3 HKLRD 565; and HKSAR v Leung Ting Fung [2015] 1 HKC 290.  He also urged me not to consider her similar past record as an aggravating factor.

16.  A letter written by the defendant was also submitted for my consideration.  Suffice it to say that she said to me that she was very remorseful and she promised to me that she would not repeat the same mistake again in the future and she should lead a law-abiding life.

Sentencing Considerations

17.  Any person who commits burglary shall be guilty of an offence, shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to an imprisonment for 14 years.  In this case, the premises of the charge was residential premises.  The Court of Appeal in Chan Yui Man, laid down sentencing guideline for burglary of domestic premises.  It was held that 3 years’ imprisonment was a proper starting point for a first offender of full age in domestic burglary.  It is also subject to adjustment upon any aggravating or mitigating factor.

18.  I have taken into account everything urged in mitigation by Mr Turnbull on behalf of the defendant.

19.  In this case, I take into account the fact that there is no evidence that the defendant was acting in collaboration with others and she committed the offence alone.  There was no sophisticated planning.  The total estimated value of the stolen property was in the region of $13,200.  The premises were unoccupied at the relevant time, and no confrontation occurred.  Despite the fact that photographs of the door indicate a pry mark on the door frame, no significant damage was caused to the premises, and there was no evidence of ransacking inside.

20.  I adopt a starting point of 36 months’ imprisonment.  It is noted that this is the defendant’s second burglary offence.  After consideration, I do not regard this circumstance as an aggravating factor warranting an increased starting point, given that the previous similar conviction occurred in 2017.  I see no mitigating factors apart from the defendant’s plea and for that, I shall give her the usual reduction of 1/3.  She is therefore to serve a term of 24 months.