HKSAR v. VIDAD GRACE REPUSO

DCCC1233/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1233 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to eight charges before this court.

(a) The first two charges are theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance;

(b) and the 3rd to 8th charges are burglary, contrary to 11(1)(b) and (4) of the Theft Ordinance.

2.  You admitted that on 19 May 2010 you stole one gold ring and on 23 June 2010 you stole one gold necklace with a jade pendant, and in both charges, the property belonged to Chan Keung-wah, who was your employer’s husband.  They were stolen from Flat H, 5th Floor, Tower 6, Parkside Villa, No. 23 Town Park Road South, Yuen Long, New Territories, Hong Kong.

3.  From the 3rd to 8th charge, you admitted that between June and August 2010, you entered as a trespasser part of a building known as Flat D, 5th Floor, Hung Fat House, Nos. 87-99 Yuen Long Kau Yuk Road, Yuen Long, New Territories, and stole therein cash of HK$5,000 on six separate occasions between June and August 2010.

4.  You were employed as a domestic helper in Hong Kong, and the wife of Mr Chan in Charges 1 and 2 was your employer.

5.  The flat which you burgled on six separate occasions was your employer’s brother’s house, Mr Chiu.  He lived there with his wife and his father. 

6.  Mr Chiu owned a bakery.  At the end of the business day, he would take most of his daily turnover from his bakery to his home and store it inside a plastic box under a chair in his bedroom.  Mr Chiu would deposit the turnover in a bank when the turnover accumulated to a certain amount.

7.  On 30 August 2010, Mr Chiu was informed by his accountant that there was a discrepancy between the recorded turnover and the money he deposited into the bank account.  Some of the recorded turnover had not been deposited into the bank account.

8.  Mr Chiu suspected that the money was stolen from the plastic box.  He inquired with his wife and his father if any strangers had visited their home in the past two months. 

9.  Mr Chiu’s father remembered that you, the defendant, had entered their home several times.  You were asked by the father why you were there in their home, and you gave various reasons, such as getting a newspaper or going to the toilet.

10.  Mr Chiu contacted his sister, your employer, Madam Chiu, and asked if she had sent you to his home.  She told him she had not.  Madam Chiu also told him that she did not lend you the spare key for his home.

11.  On 31 August, at about 11.30 pm, Mr Chiu visited his sister, Madam Chiu, at her home, which is where you also lived.  Mr Chiu and your employer, Madam Chiu, inquired with you if you had stolen the money from Mr Chiu’s home.

12.  You admitted that you had entered Mr Chiu’s home six times between June and August 2010 and stole $5,000 from his home each time.

13.  A report was made to the police.

14.  In the early hours of 1 September at about 10 minutes past midnight, two police officers arrived.  Apart from making the admissions again that you had burgled PW1’s home, you also further admitted that you stole the spare key for Mr Chiu’s home, which was stored in the living room of your employer’s premises.

15.  A woman police officer then searched you and found a number of remittance tickets, as well as two pawn shop tickets.  You admitted that the goods pawned were the subject goods of Charges 1 and 2 and were stolen from the drawer of the desk in a study room which was also your bedroom.

16.  The gold ring was pawned for $1,400, whereas the gold necklace and jade pendant was pawned at $3,500. 

17.  In a record of interview taken from you, you said the total money you had stolen was $30,000.  You repaid $12,000 to Heisei Finance Company and $11,000 to Public Finance Company.  The balance of $7,000 you remitted to the Philippines.  The money you received from pawning the stolen property in Charges 1 and 2, you had also remitted to the Philippines.

18.  Mr Chan, your solicitor, has made full mitigation on your behalf.  I have taken into account all that he has had to say.

19.  Defendant, you are aged 49 and are of clear record.  You were a domestic helper employed in Hong Kong, and had been here since May 2006.  Your place of birth was the Philippines and you had been educated up to Secondary 3.  You are separated from your husband and have two sons and a daughter, all of whom are studying in the Philippines.

20.  I am informed by Mr Chan that you are the sole breadwinner of your family.  Your husband does not support the children and leaves it all to you.  You have much financial pressure as a result.

21.  Early this year, you had to borrow money because your brother had contracted lung disease and you wanted to provide money to him to support his medical expenses.  For that reason, you committed these offences.  Unfortunately, I am informed that your brother passed away in November 2010.

22.  On your behalf, it is said that you cooperated with the police at the first available opportunity and you are very remorseful for what you have done.

23.  Mr Chan has asked me to look at the totality of these charges and sentence you as leniently as possible.

24.  The first two charges are of theft, and as Mr Chan rightly points out, those charges of theft are breach of trust, because you had, in fact, stolen from the husband of your employer.

25.  I have no value as to the value of the property stolen, but I do have the value to which they were pawned.

26.  Breach of trust offences are very serious offences.  You live and work with your employer.  You are placed in a position of great trust, as all their valuables and goods are close to your hands.

27.  You are placed in a position of trust that you will not steal from them.  Having stolen from them, you have breached this trust, and there are very clear guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal that for breach of trust cases, a sentence of immediately imprisonment is appropriate.

28.  For the burglary charges, you, I would say, again abused your position, knowing that your employer’s brother’s house keys were in the house.  You stole these and used them to enter his premises and steal totally $30,000 from him.

29.  You were very daring and audacious to enter into those premises, knowing that you would be seen, but I suppose you may have thought you may never be caught.

30.  Due to the astuteness of the accountant, who was able to see the turnover was less than what was being deposited in the bank account, these offences came to light.

31.  As Mr Chan has informed me, he has told you the guidelines for that of domestic burglary.  The starting point is one of 3 years’ imprisonment.

32.  I take into account the six charges of burglary to which you have committed, and I have considered the principle of totality.

33.  For these eight offences, had I convicted you after trial, I would have taken a starting point of 3½ years’ imprisonment.

34.  Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty, that term then will now be reduced to one of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, to which you shall be so sentenced.

35.  The following is how I will arrive at that term:

(a) On Charge 1 and 2, had I convicted you after trial, I would have taken a starting point of
12 months’ imprisonment, but giving you full credit for your plea of guilty, that term is reduced to 8 months’ imprisonment on each charge;

(b) on Charges 3 to 8, I would have taken a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, but giving you full credit for your plea of guilty, I reduce those terms to 2 years’ imprisonment.

36.  Taking into account that Charges 1 and 2 are separate and distinct charges from Charges 3 to 8, the sentence on part of that should be consecutive to Charges 3 to 8, and taking into account that there are six burglary offences, part of that is to run consecutive to each other, and to arrive at the totality of 2 years 4 months:

(a) 2 months of Charge 1 is to run consecutive to Charge 3;

(b) 2 months of Charge 4 is to run consecutive to Charge 3;

(c) and all remaining charges are to run concurrent to each other;

(d) making a total term of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.