酒店失竊

朋友外遊期間放了點物件在我處，昨晚請他們來吃飯順便拿回寄存的東西，席間閒聊不在話下，端茶送客時已屆子夜。冷鋒再臨，子夜氣溫只有幾度，昨晨草地披霜，今早會降至幾近零度，草坪難擋冽風凜，以茶當酒亦消寒。席間其中一個話題是旅遊的財物安全的問題，隨身携帶除了會丟失，也有可能被強搶，放在酒店房間的夾萬裏是否最安全呢？會經常外遊的朋友不得不看下張貼在下面的判辭幾段，頂級大酒店也會中招。這判辭是申請減刑的上訴，故此把賊人稱為申請人，最後申請駁回。

The prosecution case

3. The facts, which the applicant agreed, were as follows. In the early morning of 7 July 2013, the applicant, a Colombian national with a genuine Columbian passport, approached the reception desk of the Peninsula Hotel, pretending to be the French occupant of Room 2316, and told the receptionist that he had left his room key inside his room. After the applicant had provided the correct personal details of the true occupant of the room, the receptionist issued a new room key card to him.

4. Later that afternoon, the applicant informed hotel reception that he had forgotten the combination number of the safe in his room. Two staff members then attended the room and used a decoder to open the safe for him. That evening, the true occupant of Room 2316 returned to his room and reported that items worth a total of HK$23,800 had gone missing from the room and the safe. They were a laptop computer, a computer bag, a USB memory stick, a wallet, six credit cards and a pen (Charge 1). None of the property has been recovered.

5. On the morning of 12 July 2013, when a cleaner was cleaning Room 5033 of the Disneyland Hotel, the applicant appeared claiming to be the occupant of the room and then waited outside the room for the cleaner to complete his work. When the cleaner had finished his task, he shut the room door and asked the applicant to open it with his room key, which the applicant did after a failed first attempt.

6. Later that morning, posing as the occupant of the room, the applicant informed the house-keeping manager that he had forgotten the combination number of the safe in the room. A staff member duly arrived to open the safe for the applicant with a decoder. That evening, the true occupant of the room returned and reported to the hotel that he was unable to open the safe as the combination number had been altered. When the safe was eventually opened with the help of the hotel staff, the occupant discovered that a quantity of cash had been stolen. The exact quantity was later admitted under caution by the applicant upon his arrest to have been US$1,200 and 1,000 Indian Rupees (Charge 2). None of the property has been recovered.

7. The applicant then left Hong Kong using his Columbian passport on 13 July 2013.

8. On 17 September 2013 the applicant returned to Hong Kong and entered the territory using a forged Mexican Passport in the name of Mendoza Vega Noe, which he presented to an Immigration Assistant (Charges 3 and 4).

9. When the applicant had committed the offence at the Peninsula Hotel on 7 July 2013, his image had been captured by the hotel CCTV system. Still-photographs showing the applicant’s appearance were developed from the CCTV footage, which were then sensibly circulated to the security personnel of various Hong Kong hotels.

10. On 20 September 2013, a staff member of the Sheraton Hotel saw the applicant on 16th floor of the hotel and recognised him as the person depicted in the still-images. The police were alerted. They arrived shortly afterwards and arrested the applicant on the ground floor of the hotel. Under caution, the applicant admitted the four offences.

11. The police seized the forged Mexican passport at Chungking Mansions in Nathan Road, where the applicant had been staying after entering Hong Kong on 17 September 2013.

(HKSAR and Guzman Betancur Juan Carlos CACC 37/2015)