The Plaintiff Case Study
CasesCase 1:The first case we have heard was a theft case. The plaintiff was a convenience store in Tuen Mun Square while the defendant was an old man who was 72 years old receiving government subsidy of HK$1500 per month. Things happened several months ago, when the defendant stole two bags of potato chips which valued HK$18 in total, he was noticed and then caught by the shop assistance immediately. Then defendant was forced to return back the chips and was requested to pay for them. However the defendant refused to do so. When this case has been heard, he tried to defend himself and explained the incentive of his action was greedy. Considering defendant’s poor condition, the judge reduced his penalty and asked him to pay back the HK18 only. Even though the result seems fair and benefit the defendant in some extent, the defendant still unsatisfied with the situation and appealed to court over and over again. In the last of the hearing, the judge tried to persuade him to live with dignity and hoped that would be the last time to see him in court.
Case 2:Following the first case, the second one was a theft case as well. The plaintiff was Mannings store while the defendant was a man from Shenzhen. It was in one day morning of October, 2106, the defendant went in this Manning’s store and knocked around in the store. In the afternoon of that day, when the shop assistant checked the goods they found one can of milk powder which values HK$285 was missing. Then they viewed the surveillance video and identified the theft. After this they called police and under the help of police, the defendant had been arrested. When talked about the defendant’s family background, it seems his crime was not that unforgiven. Being a father of two children (one of which is studying in Hong Kong while the other one is still a newborn baby), the defendant is the backbone of his family as his wife has no job and no income. What worse he has been unemployed for six months. It is hard to imagine what he could do to raise his family. When the police captured him, they only found HK$1000 on him. In view of his circumstance, the judge showed her sympathy and reduced his penalty. Therefore, the defendant was sentenced for four days in prison and 12 months probation. The judge also reminded that if the defendant broke the law within the twelve months, he would be put into prison for another six days.