|
DCCC 794/2018
[2019] HKDC 520
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 794 OF 2018
---------------------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
MAYONG MARY ANN LANGAMON |
|
---------------------------------
| Before: |
Deputy District Judge E Lin |
| Present: |
Mr Victor K C Lee, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR |
|
Ms Liza Yip Shui Hung, instructed by Keith Lam Lau &
Chan, assigned by the director of Legal Aid, for the
defendant |
| Offence: |
Burglary (入屋犯法罪) |
-----------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
-----------------------------------------
1. In this case, the defendant Mayong Mary Ann Langamon faced one count of burglary, contrary to section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. She pleaded guilty and was convicted upon her plea and admission of facts.
2. For the last six years the defendant had been working as a domestic helper for a household in Tai Hang Hau Village. In the course of her employment, she became acquainted with another Filipino lady, who happened to be working in a different household as a domestic helper in the same village. They were so friendly that the other Filipino lady agreed or entrusted the defendant of the key to the house she was serving, for emergency purposes, and also for the purpose of depositing some used clothes and shoes into the unit occupied by the other Filipino lady in the other household.
3. The employers and the owner of the other household went on holidays on a regular basis and this was a fact known to the defendant. The defendant would go to that household only when its owners were not in Hong Kong.
4. On 22 July 2018 that the owners of the household left Hong Kong for holiday. At about 9 am the defendant called her friend and asked for permission to enter into the household to deposit some old clothes into the room of her friend, and permission was thus given.
5. At about 10 am that day, the defendant went inside the other household and, instead of confining her visit to her friend’s room, she went inside the study room and from which she stole a small amount of cash, including RMB200, MYR100, and US$100 currency.
6. What the defendant did was captured by a CCTV installed by the owner of the household.
7. Upon the owner’s return on 24 July 2018, the theft was discovered and the defendant was subsequently arrested.
8. Under caution, the defendant admitted to have entered into the household and went inside the study room, where she knew there was a bag, from which one can find money.
9. This is a case of burglary of domestic premises. Although the defendant was given permission to go into a specified part of the household, she was not allowed to go to the study room, not to mention to steal therefrom.
10. There is a hint of breach of trust in this case: the defendant was entrusted by her friend of the key to the household in which she was working and what she did, would definitely jeopardise her friend’s position in that household.
11. It has been suggested that this was an opportunity crime. I do not think so. The defendant went into a different section of the household which she was not permitted and she knew in advance that there was a bag inside that household in that study room.
12. That said, it is a small quantity of money involved and I was told that she had offered to pay them back. The general principle for sentence is one of deterrence. A person’s safety and sense of peace in his or her own environment is sacred and should be free from any possible intrusion. That is why a rather hefty term of imprisonment was suggested as starting point for offences involving burglary of domestic premises.
13. In this case, although the defendant knew the owners of the household were not present, one could still sense that the defendant had breached the sanctity of privacy one has for his or her own premises, even when she or he was not around.
14. That said, I do not see any reason to adopt a sentencing order that could digress from the norm. Both the prosecution and the defence agree that this kind of offences warrant a starting point of 36 months’ imprisonment.
15. The defendant had a clear record. She obviously had a hard life in the Philippines and therefore she chose to work in Hong Kong, a job which is not an easy one.
16. However, this background information is not a relevant consideration since the sentencing principle is one of deterrence. Therefore, personal circumstances should have little weight.
17. Having considered the facts as a whole, I will say that the only valid mitigating factor is the fact that she pleaded guilty and, as in line with the directions of the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong, I will reduce the sentence down to 24 months’ imprisonment.
18. Again, having reviewed the submissions including the background information relating to the defendant, I see no other factor which might justify my departure or exercise any further act of leniency.
19. The defence has suggested as an authority in the form of case HKSAR v Tsang Chun Yin, CACC 170/2017, [2018] HKCA 94. It was based on different matrix of facts and the court had been more lenient than was directed in its previous proclamations.
20. I do not see any similarities could be drawn from this case. Therefore, I do not consider that this case has any bearing in the present set of facts.
21. The defendant is therefore sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.
| |
( E Lin ) |
| |
Deputy District Judge |
|