A A
DCCC 81/2013
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 81 OF 2013
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v E
Yim Pak-ho, Myron
F F
----------------------
G G
Before: HH Judge Tallentire
Date: 3 May 2013 at 9.31 am
H Present: Mr Terry Wong, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR H
Mr Luk Wai-hung, Albert, instructed by Hau, Lau, Li &
Yeung, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
I defendant I
Offence: (1) Theft (盜竊罪)
J (2) Attempted burglary (企圖入屋犯法罪) J
(3) Falsely pretending to be a public officer (假冒公職
K
人員) K
---------------------
L L
Reasons for Verdict
M --------------------- M
N 1. Defendant, you pleaded guilty to one offence of theft, N
contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. Also you
O pleaded not guilty to one offence of attempted burglary, O
contrary to sections 11(1)(a) and (4) of the said ordinance and
P P
section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. You also pleaded
guilty to one offence of falsely pretending to be a public
Q Q
officer, contrary to section 22(1) of the Summary Offences
R Ordinance, Cap 228. R
S 2. You admitted the facts in respect of Charges 1 and 3 S
and I convicted you on those admitted facts. In respect of the
T 2nd charge, we proceeded to trial. T
U U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 1 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
3. I deal first of all with the prosecution case in
respect of Charge 2.
B B
C 4. This took place at the Hong Kong Police College, C
Aberdeen, Barrack Room 11, on the 1st Floor of Block C, East
D Wing, which is the living room for new recruits. They put their D
personal property and uniforms in that room. You who were
E E
neither a police officer nor a member of staff entered the
college without permission.
F F
G 5. At about 1915 hours on 7 November last year, three G
recruits being PW2, 3 and 4 saw you acting suspiciously. They
H followed you to Barrack Room 11 where you tampered with the H
padlock for about 3 minutes intending to break in and steal. You
I I
were unable to open that padlock. PW4 videoed you on his mobile
phone. When you found that you were under observation, you fled
J J
but you were intercepted by PWs 2 to 4. You took out the warrant
K
card which is the subject of Charge 1 and pretended to be a K
police officer which is Charge 3.
L L
6. You were arrested and cautioned and under caution you
M remained silent. The warrant card was seized. M
N N
7. You resided at premises owned by PW1 since late 2009.
PW1, as we know, is a senior inspector of police. PW1 confirmed
O O
you to be his friend and the warrant card belonged to him. PW1
P also confirmed that he was away from Hong Kong from 3 to 9 P
November inclusive and that you were not allowed to take that
Q card. Q
R R
8. A house search revealed from your room a number of
police uniforms and other accoutrements including a leather
S S
belt, white shirt, trousers, jacket and shoulder badges which
T belonged to you. T
U U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 2 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
9. In the video-recorded interview under caution you
admitted entering the college without permission at about 1900
B B
hours on 6 November and remaining there for about 25 minutes.
C Further, at about 1900 hours on 7 November you entered again and C
tampered with the padlock with intent to enter Barrack Room 11.
D You did this because you wanted to know more about the life of D
police training and did not steal anything. These acts were
E E
recorded on CCTV.
F F
10. The admitted facts which were produced as P10. P10 was
G read into evidence in accordance with the provisions of section G
65B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221. They prove the
H following: H
(1) Barrack Room 11, 1st Floor, Hong Kong Police
I I
College Aberdeen was the living room for new
recruits. They put their personal property and
J J
uniforms into that room. You were neither a
K
police officer nor a member of staff and you K
entered the college without permission.
L (2?) At about 1915 hours on 7 November last three L
recruits, PWs 2 to 4, saw you in the college.
M They followed you to Barrack Room 11. PW4 used M
his mobile phone to video you. The video was
N N
Exhibit P4.
(3) When you were intercepted by PWs 2 to 4, you
O O
immediately took out a police warrant card and
P showed it to PWs 2 to 4 and pretended to be a P
police officer. PWs 5 and 6 then arrived.
Q (4) The prosecution witnesses informed their trainer Q
who was PW7. He arrived shortly and confirmed
R R
that you were not a police officer. You were then
arrested and cautioned, you remained silent.
S S
(5) A search revealed a police warrant card in the
T name of Tam Yun-chung, Senior Inspector of Police, T
PW1. This was seized and is P1. Nothing else
U suspicious was found. U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 3 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
(6) PW1 confirmed you to be his friend. Since 2009
you had lived in PW1’s premises at The Pacifica,
B B
Cheung Sha Wan.
C (7) From 3 to 9 November last PW1 was out of Hong C
Kong. He had placed his warrant card in a box in
D his study/bedroom. D
(8) Police searched your room at Pacifica and seized a
E E
number of police uniforms and accoutrements
including a leather belt, white shirt, trousers,
F F
jacket, shoulder badges, etc, which you possessed.
G These were produced as Exhibit P6. A folder with G
14 computer printouts of P6 and a printout of P1,
H the warrant card, is produced as Exhibit P6A. H
(9) On 8 November of last year you gave a video-
I I
recorded interview under caution, it is voluntary.
The video disk, transcript and English translation
J J
are produced as Exhibit P5A, P5B and P5C
K
respectively. K
(10) According to CCTV, you entered the college at 1922
L hours on 6 November last and at about 1908 hours L
on 7 November last. The two disks are produced as
M P3A and P3B respectively. M
(11) A photo album of 16 photos is produced as Exhibit
N N
P7.
(12) A folder with 16 computer printouts of the college
O O
is produced as Exhibit P8.
P (13) A sketch not to scale of the 1st Floor of East P
Wing, Barrack Block C, is produced as Exhibit P9.
Q (14) The chain of evidence and accuracy of all Q
prosecution exhibits is not disputed.
R R
11. The prosecution case comprised mainly the above
S S
admitted facts but also three live prosecution witnesses were
T called. Additionally, I viewed the video footage taken by PW4’s T
phone.
U U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 4 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
12. The first prosecution witness called was Recruit
Police Constable 15011 who is listed as PW2. In fairness, he
B B
added little to the admitted facts. Basically he said that he,
C PW3 and 4 observed you tampering with the lock of the room C
opposite for about 3 minutes. They watched from a darkened room
D opposite. Something fell in the room and you left and they D
followed. You produced the stolen warrant card and claimed to be
E E
a police officer, Tam Sir.
F F
13. He was then cross-examined by Mr Luk but nothing in
G fact emerged, or I should say, nothing of significance. G
H 14. The next and perhaps most important live witness was H
Station Sergeant Shum listed as PW7. He was tendered by the
I I
prosecution. He disagreed that you explained you were there
because you were fond of police life and wanted to go into the
J J
room to look at what was there. He also denied that you said you
K
had no intention to steal from there. He said you said you were K
looking for someone. Later, it emerged it was someone whom PW7
L recalled to have the surname Wun, and then you remembered the L
full name to be Wun Ho-yin. He also said there was no such
M person in that block. M
N N
15. The next prosecution witness was Senior Inspector of
Police, Tam Yun-chung, PW1 on the list. He was tendered and
O O
cross-examined. He added nothing to the trial. However, he did
P make the point that he had forgiven you who had taken his P
warrant card. I do note that.
Q Q
16. I then viewed two iPhone clips amounting to 2 minutes
R R
and 22 seconds in total. These clearly showed you at the door,
tampering with the lock and looking around.
S S
T 17. The prosecution case was then closed, and in the T
absence of any contrary submission I found there was a case for
U you to answer. U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 5 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
18. Mr Luk then informed me that you had been fully
B B
advised of your rights. You understood those rights and you
C elected to give evidence but call no defence witnesses. C
D 19. You then gave evidence. I shall summarize very briefly D
what you said.
E E
20. You said that you are 35 years of age, single and with
F F
a Master degree in counselling. Your first degree had been in
G psychology. You are now unemployed but had worked as a tutor in G
an education establishment for 5 years. You quit that job
H because of this case, in fact the college asked you to resign. H
You said you had known PW1 since about 2008 and lived in a flat
I I
owned by him since 2009. PW1 himself did not reside in that
flat.
J J
K
21. On 7 November of last year, before going to work you K
found you had no cash in your wallet. You kept cash in a box,
L when you looked in that box you found PW1’s warrant card and L
took it. You said you were very fond of the police and in fact
M had once been rescued by them. You took the warrant card because M
you wanted to go into the Police College to see police life.
N N
This you did after you had finished work.
O O
22. You confirmed that you did try to find the digits on
P the padlock but failed. You said you did this because you very P
much wanted to know about the life of police recruits. You had
Q peeped into the room but it was dark and you wanted to look Q
inside. You tried to hit the number of the combination lock, you
R R
tried for about 3 minutes. You failed so you intended to leave.
You said you made use of no tools. You repeated that you had no
S S
intention to steal or damage anything. You were intercepted by a
T police recruit and later questioned by Station Sergeant Shum, T
PW7.
U U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 6 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
23. You accepted you had produced Senior Inspector Tam’s
warrant card, P1, and claimed to be a police officer. You
B B
accepted also that you did tell PW7 that you came to look for
C Wun Ho-yin. There was no such person and you said you did this C
because you were very scared. You went on to tell him that you
D wanted to see police life. And you finished your evidence-in- D
chief by reiterating that you had no intention to steal from
E E
that room.
F F
24. You were then cross-examined by Mr Wong. You claimed
G to have had an interest in police since you were 5, that you G
were enrolled as a junior police cadet. You said you wanted to
H see the police bedrooms, restrooms and living environment. You H
had asked PW1 but his explanation had been brief. You said that
I I
PW1 was in fact an inspector and you wanted to know about
recruits. You agreed that you knew you should not enter the
J J
Police College. You accepted you should not have tampered with
K
the lock. You said you really wanted to know about the life of K
recruits, just look and then go. You disagreed that your
L intention was to steal and you disagreed that you never told the L
station sergeant you wanted to know about the life of recruits.
M M
25. In response to questions from the bench, you accepted
N N
you had never applied to join the police nor had you asked PW1
if he could arrange for you to see around the college. You said
O O
you had looked on the internet for information.
P P
26. With my permission and at my invitation, Mr Luk asked
Q a few questions of you. He said that the internet showed you Q
methods of training but there were other things you wanted to
R R
know about, accommodation, rests, etc. Defence then closed its
case.
S S
T 27. Both Mr Wong for the prosecution and Mr Luk for T
defence made final submissions which I took into account when
U reaching my verdict. U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 7 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
28. I turn now to the verdict itself.
B B
C 29. This is a most unusual case in that there are no C
factual issues to be resolved in the sense that the prosecution
D case as to what occurred perfectly mirrors what you accept. The D
only issue to be resolved relates to whether or not the
E E
prosecution have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that your
intent was to steal from Barrack Room 11 if you gained entry.
F F
G 30. You fully accept that you entered the college as a G
trespasser and you compounded that trespass by entering Block C
H and you attempted to enter the room in question by tampering H
with the lock in an ultimately fruitless attempt to find the
I I
correct combinations to open it.
J J
31. Your claim and assertion both in your video recorded
K
interview and in your evidence is that you were driven by an K
overwhelming desire to look inside the room in order to gain
L more knowledge and appreciation of the life of a police recruit. L
M 32. On the other hand, the prosecution contend that the M
evidence and the circumstances must lead the court to the
N N
irresistible inference that your real and true purpose was to
steal from there. From the evidence, it is clear to me, and the
O O
prosecution do not suggest otherwise, that you did and do still
P seem to have a morbid obsession or interest in the police. There P
is not a shred of evidence to the contrary.
Q Q
33. In my opinion, this is neutral as to intent as I shall
R R
explain later. Your obsession is fully supported and evinced by
the possession of all the police uniforms, accoutrements and
S S
equipment found at your residence and produced as P6. As there
T has been no suggestion or evidence to show otherwise, I fully T
accept that those articles were lawfully obtained and owned by
U you. This is a large collection and as such, I am of the opinion U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 8 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
that such a collection should not be regarded as complete. There
is every indication and likelihood that you would wish to add to
B B
it.
C C
34. Further, whilst the goods in your possession were
D lawfully obtained, there is no evidence that goods in the future D
would be lawfully acquired and indeed there is always the
E E
possibility of a change to you acquiring such goods by unlawful
means. This would be fuelled either by economic necessity or
F F
difficulty in sourcing such articles. At this point we deal only
G with possibilities. G
H 35. Taking the matter further, there is indeed your theft H
of the warrant card of your friend, owned by Senior Inspector
I I
Tam Yun-chung, and this shows a propensity to acquire police
material by dishonest means. This is compounded by your
J J
willingness to invoke deceit as it was used to try and escape
K
when caught by the vigilant recruits. Those three recruits K
should be highly commended for their vigilance.
L L
36. You make further admissions of dishonesty in that you
M lied to Station Sergeant Shum by claiming to be searching for a M
non-existent person. Whether you then went on to lay claim to
N N
the reason for entering the room so as merely to have a look is,
in my opinion, of limited importance. I am even prepared to give
O O
you the benefit of the doubt on that point. You have therefore
P established yourself as someone who is a thief and a liar and P
this is by your own admission.
Q Q
37. We also know from the admitted facts that the previous
R R
night, 6 November, you had entered the college again as a
trespasser. In my opinion, this is entirely consistent with what
S S
is in common parlance called “casing the joint”. This is an act
T highly supportive of a would-be burglar spying on the premises T
he intends to steal from. While not wishing to make too much of
U this issue, but given the nature of your obsession for police U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 9 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
life, and if it is, as you claim, why did you not or try to
follow a career in the Police Force, that is the question that
B B
is posed. This is of course of limited relevance.
C C
38. I do note and accept that you did become a junior
D police cadet. This, however, does not seem to have taken the D
edge off your obsession. Also, if your purpose was merely to see
E E
and appreciate the living accommodation of police recruits, why
did you not, as you so admit, speak with Senior Inspector Tam to
F F
ask if he could arrange for you to visit the college as an
G invited guest? G
H 39. But what weighs with me most is would anyone with a H
modicum of common sense risk illegally entering a police college
I I
not once but twice and attempt to enter a locked room whilst in
possession of stolen goods simply to see inside. I draw the
J J
conclusion that this cannot be so, and I pose the question: what
K
indeed did you expect to see? There could only be furniture, K
uniforms and fittings. In my opinion, it is incredible and it is
L untrue that your intention was merely to look inside. L
M 40. Drawing all the facts and circumstances together, the M
only and irresistible inference I can indeed draw is that you
N N
intended to enter Barrack Room 11 to steal the goods of police
recruits, that it was your hope and intention to add to your
O O
collection. Therefore, I am satisfied beyond all reasonable
P doubt that on the 2nd charge you are guilty and I convict you. P
Q Q
R R
Tallentire
S S
District Judge
T T
U U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 10 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
DCCC 81/2013
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 81 OF 2013
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v E
Yim Pak-ho, Myron
F F
----------------------
G G
Before: HH Judge Tallentire
Date: 3 May 2013 at 9.31 am
H Present: Mr Terry Wong, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR H
Mr Luk Wai-hung, Albert, instructed by Hau, Lau, Li &
Yeung, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
I defendant I
Offence: (1) Theft (盜竊罪)
J (2) Attempted burglary (企圖入屋犯法罪) J
(3) Falsely pretending to be a public officer (假冒公職
K
人員) K
---------------------
L L
Reasons for Verdict
M --------------------- M
N 1. Defendant, you pleaded guilty to one offence of theft, N
contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. Also you
O pleaded not guilty to one offence of attempted burglary, O
contrary to sections 11(1)(a) and (4) of the said ordinance and
P P
section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. You also pleaded
guilty to one offence of falsely pretending to be a public
Q Q
officer, contrary to section 22(1) of the Summary Offences
R Ordinance, Cap 228. R
S 2. You admitted the facts in respect of Charges 1 and 3 S
and I convicted you on those admitted facts. In respect of the
T 2nd charge, we proceeded to trial. T
U U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 1 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
3. I deal first of all with the prosecution case in
respect of Charge 2.
B B
C 4. This took place at the Hong Kong Police College, C
Aberdeen, Barrack Room 11, on the 1st Floor of Block C, East
D Wing, which is the living room for new recruits. They put their D
personal property and uniforms in that room. You who were
E E
neither a police officer nor a member of staff entered the
college without permission.
F F
G 5. At about 1915 hours on 7 November last year, three G
recruits being PW2, 3 and 4 saw you acting suspiciously. They
H followed you to Barrack Room 11 where you tampered with the H
padlock for about 3 minutes intending to break in and steal. You
I I
were unable to open that padlock. PW4 videoed you on his mobile
phone. When you found that you were under observation, you fled
J J
but you were intercepted by PWs 2 to 4. You took out the warrant
K
card which is the subject of Charge 1 and pretended to be a K
police officer which is Charge 3.
L L
6. You were arrested and cautioned and under caution you
M remained silent. The warrant card was seized. M
N N
7. You resided at premises owned by PW1 since late 2009.
PW1, as we know, is a senior inspector of police. PW1 confirmed
O O
you to be his friend and the warrant card belonged to him. PW1
P also confirmed that he was away from Hong Kong from 3 to 9 P
November inclusive and that you were not allowed to take that
Q card. Q
R R
8. A house search revealed from your room a number of
police uniforms and other accoutrements including a leather
S S
belt, white shirt, trousers, jacket and shoulder badges which
T belonged to you. T
U U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 2 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
9. In the video-recorded interview under caution you
admitted entering the college without permission at about 1900
B B
hours on 6 November and remaining there for about 25 minutes.
C Further, at about 1900 hours on 7 November you entered again and C
tampered with the padlock with intent to enter Barrack Room 11.
D You did this because you wanted to know more about the life of D
police training and did not steal anything. These acts were
E E
recorded on CCTV.
F F
10. The admitted facts which were produced as P10. P10 was
G read into evidence in accordance with the provisions of section G
65B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221. They prove the
H following: H
(1) Barrack Room 11, 1st Floor, Hong Kong Police
I I
College Aberdeen was the living room for new
recruits. They put their personal property and
J J
uniforms into that room. You were neither a
K
police officer nor a member of staff and you K
entered the college without permission.
L (2?) At about 1915 hours on 7 November last three L
recruits, PWs 2 to 4, saw you in the college.
M They followed you to Barrack Room 11. PW4 used M
his mobile phone to video you. The video was
N N
Exhibit P4.
(3) When you were intercepted by PWs 2 to 4, you
O O
immediately took out a police warrant card and
P showed it to PWs 2 to 4 and pretended to be a P
police officer. PWs 5 and 6 then arrived.
Q (4) The prosecution witnesses informed their trainer Q
who was PW7. He arrived shortly and confirmed
R R
that you were not a police officer. You were then
arrested and cautioned, you remained silent.
S S
(5) A search revealed a police warrant card in the
T name of Tam Yun-chung, Senior Inspector of Police, T
PW1. This was seized and is P1. Nothing else
U suspicious was found. U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 3 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
(6) PW1 confirmed you to be his friend. Since 2009
you had lived in PW1’s premises at The Pacifica,
B B
Cheung Sha Wan.
C (7) From 3 to 9 November last PW1 was out of Hong C
Kong. He had placed his warrant card in a box in
D his study/bedroom. D
(8) Police searched your room at Pacifica and seized a
E E
number of police uniforms and accoutrements
including a leather belt, white shirt, trousers,
F F
jacket, shoulder badges, etc, which you possessed.
G These were produced as Exhibit P6. A folder with G
14 computer printouts of P6 and a printout of P1,
H the warrant card, is produced as Exhibit P6A. H
(9) On 8 November of last year you gave a video-
I I
recorded interview under caution, it is voluntary.
The video disk, transcript and English translation
J J
are produced as Exhibit P5A, P5B and P5C
K
respectively. K
(10) According to CCTV, you entered the college at 1922
L hours on 6 November last and at about 1908 hours L
on 7 November last. The two disks are produced as
M P3A and P3B respectively. M
(11) A photo album of 16 photos is produced as Exhibit
N N
P7.
(12) A folder with 16 computer printouts of the college
O O
is produced as Exhibit P8.
P (13) A sketch not to scale of the 1st Floor of East P
Wing, Barrack Block C, is produced as Exhibit P9.
Q (14) The chain of evidence and accuracy of all Q
prosecution exhibits is not disputed.
R R
11. The prosecution case comprised mainly the above
S S
admitted facts but also three live prosecution witnesses were
T called. Additionally, I viewed the video footage taken by PW4’s T
phone.
U U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 4 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
12. The first prosecution witness called was Recruit
Police Constable 15011 who is listed as PW2. In fairness, he
B B
added little to the admitted facts. Basically he said that he,
C PW3 and 4 observed you tampering with the lock of the room C
opposite for about 3 minutes. They watched from a darkened room
D opposite. Something fell in the room and you left and they D
followed. You produced the stolen warrant card and claimed to be
E E
a police officer, Tam Sir.
F F
13. He was then cross-examined by Mr Luk but nothing in
G fact emerged, or I should say, nothing of significance. G
H 14. The next and perhaps most important live witness was H
Station Sergeant Shum listed as PW7. He was tendered by the
I I
prosecution. He disagreed that you explained you were there
because you were fond of police life and wanted to go into the
J J
room to look at what was there. He also denied that you said you
K
had no intention to steal from there. He said you said you were K
looking for someone. Later, it emerged it was someone whom PW7
L recalled to have the surname Wun, and then you remembered the L
full name to be Wun Ho-yin. He also said there was no such
M person in that block. M
N N
15. The next prosecution witness was Senior Inspector of
Police, Tam Yun-chung, PW1 on the list. He was tendered and
O O
cross-examined. He added nothing to the trial. However, he did
P make the point that he had forgiven you who had taken his P
warrant card. I do note that.
Q Q
16. I then viewed two iPhone clips amounting to 2 minutes
R R
and 22 seconds in total. These clearly showed you at the door,
tampering with the lock and looking around.
S S
T 17. The prosecution case was then closed, and in the T
absence of any contrary submission I found there was a case for
U you to answer. U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 5 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
18. Mr Luk then informed me that you had been fully
B B
advised of your rights. You understood those rights and you
C elected to give evidence but call no defence witnesses. C
D 19. You then gave evidence. I shall summarize very briefly D
what you said.
E E
20. You said that you are 35 years of age, single and with
F F
a Master degree in counselling. Your first degree had been in
G psychology. You are now unemployed but had worked as a tutor in G
an education establishment for 5 years. You quit that job
H because of this case, in fact the college asked you to resign. H
You said you had known PW1 since about 2008 and lived in a flat
I I
owned by him since 2009. PW1 himself did not reside in that
flat.
J J
K
21. On 7 November of last year, before going to work you K
found you had no cash in your wallet. You kept cash in a box,
L when you looked in that box you found PW1’s warrant card and L
took it. You said you were very fond of the police and in fact
M had once been rescued by them. You took the warrant card because M
you wanted to go into the Police College to see police life.
N N
This you did after you had finished work.
O O
22. You confirmed that you did try to find the digits on
P the padlock but failed. You said you did this because you very P
much wanted to know about the life of police recruits. You had
Q peeped into the room but it was dark and you wanted to look Q
inside. You tried to hit the number of the combination lock, you
R R
tried for about 3 minutes. You failed so you intended to leave.
You said you made use of no tools. You repeated that you had no
S S
intention to steal or damage anything. You were intercepted by a
T police recruit and later questioned by Station Sergeant Shum, T
PW7.
U U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 6 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
23. You accepted you had produced Senior Inspector Tam’s
warrant card, P1, and claimed to be a police officer. You
B B
accepted also that you did tell PW7 that you came to look for
C Wun Ho-yin. There was no such person and you said you did this C
because you were very scared. You went on to tell him that you
D wanted to see police life. And you finished your evidence-in- D
chief by reiterating that you had no intention to steal from
E E
that room.
F F
24. You were then cross-examined by Mr Wong. You claimed
G to have had an interest in police since you were 5, that you G
were enrolled as a junior police cadet. You said you wanted to
H see the police bedrooms, restrooms and living environment. You H
had asked PW1 but his explanation had been brief. You said that
I I
PW1 was in fact an inspector and you wanted to know about
recruits. You agreed that you knew you should not enter the
J J
Police College. You accepted you should not have tampered with
K
the lock. You said you really wanted to know about the life of K
recruits, just look and then go. You disagreed that your
L intention was to steal and you disagreed that you never told the L
station sergeant you wanted to know about the life of recruits.
M M
25. In response to questions from the bench, you accepted
N N
you had never applied to join the police nor had you asked PW1
if he could arrange for you to see around the college. You said
O O
you had looked on the internet for information.
P P
26. With my permission and at my invitation, Mr Luk asked
Q a few questions of you. He said that the internet showed you Q
methods of training but there were other things you wanted to
R R
know about, accommodation, rests, etc. Defence then closed its
case.
S S
T 27. Both Mr Wong for the prosecution and Mr Luk for T
defence made final submissions which I took into account when
U reaching my verdict. U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 7 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
28. I turn now to the verdict itself.
B B
C 29. This is a most unusual case in that there are no C
factual issues to be resolved in the sense that the prosecution
D case as to what occurred perfectly mirrors what you accept. The D
only issue to be resolved relates to whether or not the
E E
prosecution have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that your
intent was to steal from Barrack Room 11 if you gained entry.
F F
G 30. You fully accept that you entered the college as a G
trespasser and you compounded that trespass by entering Block C
H and you attempted to enter the room in question by tampering H
with the lock in an ultimately fruitless attempt to find the
I I
correct combinations to open it.
J J
31. Your claim and assertion both in your video recorded
K
interview and in your evidence is that you were driven by an K
overwhelming desire to look inside the room in order to gain
L more knowledge and appreciation of the life of a police recruit. L
M 32. On the other hand, the prosecution contend that the M
evidence and the circumstances must lead the court to the
N N
irresistible inference that your real and true purpose was to
steal from there. From the evidence, it is clear to me, and the
O O
prosecution do not suggest otherwise, that you did and do still
P seem to have a morbid obsession or interest in the police. There P
is not a shred of evidence to the contrary.
Q Q
33. In my opinion, this is neutral as to intent as I shall
R R
explain later. Your obsession is fully supported and evinced by
the possession of all the police uniforms, accoutrements and
S S
equipment found at your residence and produced as P6. As there
T has been no suggestion or evidence to show otherwise, I fully T
accept that those articles were lawfully obtained and owned by
U you. This is a large collection and as such, I am of the opinion U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 8 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
that such a collection should not be regarded as complete. There
is every indication and likelihood that you would wish to add to
B B
it.
C C
34. Further, whilst the goods in your possession were
D lawfully obtained, there is no evidence that goods in the future D
would be lawfully acquired and indeed there is always the
E E
possibility of a change to you acquiring such goods by unlawful
means. This would be fuelled either by economic necessity or
F F
difficulty in sourcing such articles. At this point we deal only
G with possibilities. G
H 35. Taking the matter further, there is indeed your theft H
of the warrant card of your friend, owned by Senior Inspector
I I
Tam Yun-chung, and this shows a propensity to acquire police
material by dishonest means. This is compounded by your
J J
willingness to invoke deceit as it was used to try and escape
K
when caught by the vigilant recruits. Those three recruits K
should be highly commended for their vigilance.
L L
36. You make further admissions of dishonesty in that you
M lied to Station Sergeant Shum by claiming to be searching for a M
non-existent person. Whether you then went on to lay claim to
N N
the reason for entering the room so as merely to have a look is,
in my opinion, of limited importance. I am even prepared to give
O O
you the benefit of the doubt on that point. You have therefore
P established yourself as someone who is a thief and a liar and P
this is by your own admission.
Q Q
37. We also know from the admitted facts that the previous
R R
night, 6 November, you had entered the college again as a
trespasser. In my opinion, this is entirely consistent with what
S S
is in common parlance called “casing the joint”. This is an act
T highly supportive of a would-be burglar spying on the premises T
he intends to steal from. While not wishing to make too much of
U this issue, but given the nature of your obsession for police U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 9 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V
A A
life, and if it is, as you claim, why did you not or try to
follow a career in the Police Force, that is the question that
B B
is posed. This is of course of limited relevance.
C C
38. I do note and accept that you did become a junior
D police cadet. This, however, does not seem to have taken the D
edge off your obsession. Also, if your purpose was merely to see
E E
and appreciate the living accommodation of police recruits, why
did you not, as you so admit, speak with Senior Inspector Tam to
F F
ask if he could arrange for you to visit the college as an
G invited guest? G
H 39. But what weighs with me most is would anyone with a H
modicum of common sense risk illegally entering a police college
I I
not once but twice and attempt to enter a locked room whilst in
possession of stolen goods simply to see inside. I draw the
J J
conclusion that this cannot be so, and I pose the question: what
K
indeed did you expect to see? There could only be furniture, K
uniforms and fittings. In my opinion, it is incredible and it is
L untrue that your intention was merely to look inside. L
M 40. Drawing all the facts and circumstances together, the M
only and irresistible inference I can indeed draw is that you
N N
intended to enter Barrack Room 11 to steal the goods of police
recruits, that it was your hope and intention to add to your
O O
collection. Therefore, I am satisfied beyond all reasonable
P doubt that on the 2nd charge you are guilty and I convict you. P
Q Q
R R
Tallentire
S S
District Judge
T T
U U
CRT31/3.5.2013/SY 10 DCCC 81/2013/Verdict
V V