HKSAR v. TANG TIT SHING

DCCC 78/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 78 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to four charges: the first two are theft offences, contrary to Section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210; the third and fourth offences are burglary charges, contrary to Section 11(1)(b) and (4) of the same ordinance.

2.  This is not a straightforward theft or burglary case, because the defendant stole from and burgled his friend’s home.  He was able to gain access to his friend’s home because he had on an occasion stolen the front-door keys.

3.  There are two victims in this case:  a father and son who lived together.  The son is the defendant’s friend and it was the son who invited the defendant over to his home on several occasions.  It was on one of those occasions when the defendant says, out of curiosity, he looked in a box to find some jewellery in it.  Without his friend knowing, he stole the jewellery and pawned it.

4.  What he did was a breach of trust, a breach of friendship boundaries.  In fact, the defendant took advantage of the friendship of his friend.

5.  Defendant has given an explanation for his unacceptable behaviour and it was because he had got himself into financial trouble due to a gambling problem.  It seems he has borrowed a significant amount of money, over $100,000, from financial institutions.

6.  The first time the defendant stole was in July 2014.  He admits he stole a necklace and a bracelet.

7.  The second offence took place in early November 2014, where he took $1,000 cash and the front-door keys.  With those front-door keys, he let himself in when no one was at home on two occasions in November, and on those occasions he stole mainly cash, but on the first occasion he stole also a wrist chain. 

8.  He admitted that he either pawned the items or spent the cash.  The relevant pawnshop has subsequently sold the victim’s items.

9.  As part of mitigation, the defendant’s family has repaid the victim’s losses on the defendant’s behalf.  Not only have they done that, but the entire family has been in court on both occasions to support the defendant.

10.  I have been told that the defendant’s father is now retired.  His mother works part time and his only sibling, an elder sister, is a university student.

11.  The defendant, prior to this arrest, did have full-time employment as a delivery worker, earning $11,000 a month, and he was responsible enough to financially support his family.

12.  Sadly, this meant that, with his gambling problem and debts, he had insufficient income to cover those payments. Defendant solved this problem by stealing from his friend who had invited him into his home.

13.  I am sure the defendant has now learnt that gambling leads to nowhere good.

14.  Significant mitigation in this case is the fact the defendant had a clear record, pleaded guilty, showed his remorse, and compensation and full restitution has been made.

15.  These facts are very relevant to sentencing.

16.  I have also received letters from his family and his employer, who has said a job will remain open for the defendant.

17.  Moreover, there is a letter from the victim, the defendant’s friend.  In a kind gesture, the friend says that he and his father have forgiven the defendant and understand the defendant acted stupidly but was trying to get himself out of trouble.  He has asked for leniency on behalf of the defendant.

18.  Defendant, please stand up.

19.  I have taken into account all of those mitigation and relevant factors I have just referred to, and, in coming to an appropriate starting point, I find for Charges 1 and 2 a 12-month starting point appropriate. 

20.  You pleaded guilty and you are entitled to a discount of one-third for that plea. 

21.  That sentence for Charges 1 and 2 will be reduced to 8 months’ imprisonment for each charge.

22.  For the burglary offences (Charges 3 and 4), a normal starting point for a domestic premise burglary should be 3 years’ imprisonment.

23.  However, I am going to lower that starting point to 2 years and 6 months to reflect the compensation paid, the forgiveness of the victims, and the mitigation I have heard.

24.  From that starting point of 2 years and 6 months, you are entitled to a discount of one-third.

25.  After that discount, for Charges 3 and 4, you are sentenced to 1 year and 8 months for each offence.

26.  I, after considering the totality principle, will order that all four charges to be served concurrently.

27.  Therefore, total sentence is 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.

COURT: Do you understand that sentence?

A. Yes, I do.