HKSAR v. YATI

DCCC831/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 831 OF 2012

———————-

HKSAR
v.
Yati
———————-

Before: District Judge Tallentire

Date: 29 November 2012 at 12.45 pm

Present: Mr Kwok Wing-lung, SPP, for the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Ms See Heung-woon, Sabrina, instructed by Messrs Chan & Chan, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant

Offence: Burglary (入屋犯法罪)

———————

Reasons for Sentence

———————

1. Defendant, you have been convicted of one offence of burglary, that is a burglary with intent to steal. The evidence against youwas, in my opinion, totally overwhelming.

2. The facts have been dealt with at length in my verdict so I shall not repeat them, save to say that basically what happened is thatyou returned to premises where you had been employed as a domestic helper, you entered those premises intending to steal but tooknothing and did not ransack those premises.

3. Miss See on your behalf entered mitigation. First, she conceded that you had indeed one previous conviction so the concession Imade when I assessed your evidence was misplaced and generous, but that was in your favour.

4. She said there was little she could say in mitigation. That is indeed true. She told me you came to Hong Kong from Indonesia in2010. You came to work as a domestic helper. You have made an application for asylum as a victim of torture and that matter iscurrently being dealt with, which is why you were on bail. She told me that in Indonesia you had been abandoned by your parentsand found work difficult. In respect of the offence itself, the only mitigation was that you had taken nothing nor ransacked thepremises.

5. I turn to the sentence.

6. This is a burglary of domestic premises. This is also a breach of trust to the extent that you entered as a trespasser the premisesof the family who had employed you for a short period. In mitigation, you went alone, you were not armed, the old lady would haveknown you and not been in fear had she been there, you did not ransack those premises and you took nothing. I can only assume thatis, as I said, because you found nothing to steal or were disturbed.

7. I note that you have a previous conviction. This was for two offences, one of which related to dishonesty.

8. Taking all matters into consideration, I cannot see any reason to depart from the normal tariff. You will go to prison for 3 years.

Tallentire
District Judge