|A District Court judge handed down the choice in Tsuen Wan law courts constructing|
In lower than a month, a Filipino asylum seeker managed to
enter and take various gadgets and money from 12 restaurants in Mongkok and Sham
Shui Po, and was caught only after being stopped by the police for a random
search on July 7 this 12 months.
Jeffrey M. Quiatchon, 36, was sentenced to a complete of 36
months on Nov. 10, after pleading guilty to 12 counts of burglary and one among
theft, which involved him taking letters addressed to numerous individuals from
All of the burglaries were committed within the morning, with all
except one happening before the restaurants opened for the day.
He had a previous conviction for drug possession but none relating
In mitigation, his Legal Aid counsel, Maurice Tracy, said
Quiatchon arrived in Hong Kong from the
14, 2018 but didn’t leave when his visa expired. In July 2018 he became a Form
8 holder –meaning applied for non-refoulement, or against being sent back to
The defendant is single but has five children in consequence of
different relationships, they usually range in age from 2 to fifteen. Three of them are
committed the 13 offenses because he desired to make slightly extra cash for
his “de facto” family in
submitted that within the 12 burglaries, Quiatchon only sneaked in to the
restaurants, and nobody was alarmed by his presence, and no property was damaged.
Prosecuting counsel Ching Kwan-fung confirmed that there was
no evidence of forcible entry in any of the premises burgled by Quiatchon, and
that the culprits seen on CCTV all wore face masks, which meant that the one
evidence against the defendant was his own admission to the crimes.
In sentencing, District Court Judge Gary Lam said he had sympathy for
individuals who had to flee from their homeland for various reasons to hunt refuge
in a foreign country. He also noted that the verification of non-refoulement
claims can take an extended time, but he said “Form 8 holders must behave themselves
and obey the law in return for the hospitality prolonged to them by
Judge Lam also identified that although as a Form 8 holder
the defendant is unable to work for money, his basic need similar to housing and
food are provided by the federal government and/or non-government organizations.
“In any event, being in a financial difficulty isn’t
mitigating factor for committing a criminal offense,” he added.
He also said that as rightfully accepted by the defence, the
defendant’s immigration status aggravated as a substitute of mitigated his crimes.
One other aggravating factor was that a series of burglaries were involved.
“Taking into account the totality principle, I consider a world
place to begin of 5 years appropriate for all 13 charges. I would cut back it to
4.5 years to reflect the undeniable fact that the evidence against the defendant in
Charges 1 to 12 got here primarily from his own admissions. With the timely guilty
pleas, the general sentence becomes 36 months,” said the judge.
He then went on to explain intimately the sentences for every
of the 12 charges of burglary and one among theft against the defendant.
In response to the detailed judgment, Quiatchon sneaked into
the restaurants early within the morning before restaurants opened, aside from the
first offence when he was seen by the restaurant owner entering the premises
around 11:36 am on June 7, and leaving soon after.
In this primary offence, the defendant took away a Samsung A7
tablet, valued at $2,000 and was placed near the cashier counter.
Two days later, he was shown on CCTV entering a second
restaurant at 6:33am, shortly before it was to open, and took away a Redmi 9A
cell phone valued at $600, which was on a counter near the doorway.
On June 14, he struck again at one other restaurant, entering
the premises at around 6am and taking away a Redmi Note 9 cell phone valued
at $2,500 placed near its entrance. The restaurant’s business hours
were 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
On the identical day, he committed his fifth burglary when he
entered one other restaurant at 7:36am, and took away a Xiaomi cell phone valued
at $1,000 placed near the entrance. This restaurant opened at 11
On June 18, he entered a fifth restaurant and took away a
metal box containing $5,000 placed on the cashier counter. He entered the
restaurant at around 9am, two hours before the restaurant was to open.
The subsequent day, he entered a sixth restaurant at 7:35 am and
took away a Redmi cell phone valued at $1,500 placed on the
On June 25 he took away a Nokia cell phone valued at
$1,000 from a restaurant which he entered at 6:50am. About two hours later he
entered one other restaurant twice, and every time took a Xiaomi cell phone
price $900 from the cashier counter.
It took six days before he entered one other restaurant which
opened at noon and took away a Huawei tablet (valued at $3,000) placed on
the cashier counter at around 7:30 within the morning.
About an hour in a while the identical day, he struck at one other
restaurant where he took away a Samsung cell phone (valued at
$2,000) placed on the cashier counter and a red picket box
containing a chunk of jade (valued at $1,000) placed on a cabinet.
4 days later he sneaked into two restaurants in
succession, during which he stole a Huawei tablet (valued at
$1,500) and a box containing about $1,000 money, each placed on the
cashier counter in the primary location, and a Ulefone Note 10 cell phone
(valued at $1,500) within the second.
Greater than an hour after the last burglary Quiatchon was
stopped on the road by a police officer for enquiry and a search. His
backpack yielded the stolen Huawei tablet and a plastic bag containing three
letters addressed to different units at
, Sham Shui Po.
He was arrested for theft but remained silent during
But during a video recorded interview on the police station
he admitted stealing phones and money in restaurants “due to greed.” He also
said he picked up the letters outside Nos
to hide the
tablet and cell phone in his bag.
Nonetheless, during this time he only admitted committing
burglary in six different restaurants.