|
DCCC 515/2013
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 515 OF 2013
----------------------
----------------------
| Before: |
HH Judge Woodcock |
| Date: |
20 August 2013 at 10.28 am |
| Present: |
Ms Bina Sujanani, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr Frederic Charles Whitehouse, instructed by Tung, Ng, Tse & Heung, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The defendant has pleaded guilty today to one charge of theft, contrary to Section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.
2. The facts are as follows.
3. The victim was the owner of 14.12 kilogrammes of tourmaline and he had put this raw unfinished stone into a safe of a business associate (PW2) for safekeeping. Both men were jewellery merchants. The safe was located in PW2’s office premises in Hung Hom. Hung Hom is the hub of jewellery merchants in Hong Kong. The victim had carefully recorded the weight and had photographs of his tourmaline to safeguard his property.
4. The defendant is associated with PW2. He is not an employee but a friend of PW2, a friend who hung around his office, I am told, all the time, because, as an asylum seeker, the defendant is unable to work in Hong Kong and has a lot of time on his hands.
5. On a particular day, 23 January 2013, the victim had taken out the tourmaline from the safe to show some customers. The customers did not ultimately buy any of it.
6. After the customers left, the victim was going to put the stone back in the safe. The defendant offered to help him and whilst helping him siphoned off 5.62 kilogrammes of this stone without the victim knowing.
7. The victim discovered this amount was missing a week later when he took the tourmaline out of the safe again. He reported it stolen to the police.
8. On 4 February, a friend of the victim saw some tourmaline in another jewellery merchant’s office in Hung Hom and suspected it belonged to the victim.
9. The victim then went to this office and identified the stone as his stolen property.
10. He informed the police and the police seized it.
11. This amount weighed 3.623 kilogrammes.
12. PW4 told the police that he had bought this and the balance found at his home that weighed 1.767 kilogrammes from the defendant for $100,000.
13. The victim says that his stolen tourmaline was worth 546-odd thousand dollars.
14. The defendant was arrested some days later on 18 February at home. $17,000 was found on the defendant and in his wallet was PW4’s name card. That and his mobile were seized.
15. Subsequently, phone records showed defendant and PW4 had communicated by phone on 30 January as well as between 2 and 4 February.
16. The defendant admitted to the police under caution that the tourmaline found in PW4’s custody belonged to the victim.
17. The defendant has pleaded guilty today and admits stealing this amount of tourmaline from the victim.
18. This is not a breach of trust case in a strict sense. The victim trusted the defendant to handle his valuables because he was associated with PW2’s business.
19. I have heard mitigation today.
20. The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea today.
21. He is 28 years old and single. In Hong Kong he has a clear record. He comes from India and is educated up to university level. He came to Hong Kong in 2009. He became an asylum seeker but has now been denied refugee status.
22. Defence counsel has referred me to one authority. It is not a guideline case but a similar theft of valuable jewellery, HKSAR v Lee Oi Lin Irene, CACC 166/2011.
23. I have considered that authority. What is relevant here is the facts; the value of the raw stone; the defendant’s plea, previous clear record; and the fact I accept that he acted impulsively out of greed and temptation. There is no evidence that there was any sophisticated planning on his part. He saw an opportunity and took it.
24. Luckily, the majority of the tourmaline has been recovered by the police.
25. Defendant, please stand up.
26. I consider all those factors relevant as well as mitigation put forward on your behalf and accordingly find a starting point of 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment appropriate.
27. For your plea, you are entitled to a discount of one-third.
28. After that discount you are sentenced accordingly to
1 year and 6 months’ imprisonment.
| |
A. J. Woodcock |
| |
District Judge |
|