IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 174 OF 2012
Reasons for Sentence
1. The defendant pleaded guilty to a count of theft, under section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. Such offence was in the nature of pickpocketing.
2. The facts of the case can be summarised as follows.
3. At 5.40 pm on 27 January 2012, PC4001 (“PW2”) was conducting anti-pickpocket patrol in Sai Yeung Choi Street near Dundas Street,Mongkok. He saw the defendant acting furtively. At the material time, the streets were crowded with heavy pedestrian traffic.
4. At 5.43 pm on the same day, PW2 saw the defendant following a female, who was using her mobile phone (Exhibit P1) whilst walkingalong Dundas Street. Having used exhibit P1, the female put it into her right front jacket pocket. PW2 then saw the defendant insertinghis right hand into the female’s right front jacket pocket and then taking out a mobile phone therefrom.
5. Having done so, the defendant turned around and left quickly towards Sai Yeung Choi Street. PW2 pointed at the defendant and askedhis colleague PC58426 to follow the defendant. The police then intercepted the defendant outside the Hong Kong Jockey Club at M/F,Nathan Centre, No.580 Nathan Road.
6. At this time, the defendant was holding a mobile phone which was later confirmed by the said female to be her property. The defendantwas arrested and cautioned. It was found that he had with him HK$20,415.60 and Renminbi$11 at the time of arrest. The value ofexhibit P1 is about HK$5,000.
The defendant’s background
7. The defendant aged 36 was a labourer. As early as in 1987 and at the age of 12, the defendant had his first conviction of theft. In the subsequent 24 years, the defendant had been to the Magistrates’ Courts and District Court on 19 occasions, relating tosome 33 offences. Of these offences 26 were dishonesty related, including four pickpocketing convictions.
8. He is obviously a repeat and professional offender and had been in and out of prison on numerous occasions, ranging from 4 monthsto 24 months. His last conviction was in June 2010, whereupon he was sentenced to a total sentence of 24 months’ imprisonmentfor two theft charges. He was then released on 30 September 2011.
9. Within four months time, he again committed the present offence of pickpocketing. Apart from pleading guilty to the offence, thiscourt sees no remorse at all from the defendant. There was nothing much the defence counsel could mitigate on his behalf.
10. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy CACC107/2004 remarked that:
Initial starting point
11. The Court of Appeal, in HKSAR v Chiu Suet Yee, Angel CACC105/2010, held that:
There was nothing unusual in the circumstances of the case and this court is prepared to adopt an initial starting point of 12 months’imprisonment.
12. The aggravating features that the offence was committed in crowded public areas and that the defendant is a habitual offender ofthe same kind of offence would however, justified the court to impose a higher sentence. In respect of the latter feature, the Courtof Appeal in Ngo’s case said that:
Taking into account of the appalling previous record for dishonesty and pickpocketing offences into consideration, and an enhancementof 6 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate. The facts that the offence was committed in a crowded public area would warranta further enhancement of 3 months’ imprisonment.
Final starting point
13. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, including the criminality of the offence and culpability of the defendant andthe guidelines set out by the Court of Appeal, this court would adopt a final starting point of sentence for 21 months’ imprisonment. Such sentence would be reduced by one-third for the defendant’s guilty plea to 14 months’ imprisonment.
14. This court now orders a 14 months’ imprisonment.