HKSAR v. Le Van Hoa (also known as Lee Man Wah and Lee Van Hoa)

DCCC 1031/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1031 OF 2016

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

----------------------------

Reasons for Sentence

----------------------------

Charge and facts

1.The Defendant pleads guilty to a charge of theft. 

2.At about 8:20 a.m. on 18 September 2016, Madam Hui was shopping at a very crowded location in the Pei Ho Street market, Sham Shui Po.  The Defendant behind her stretched his right hand to take her LG smartphone valued at $1,500 from her rear trouser pocket.  She felt some movement at her rear and turned about, only to find the Defendant holding it in his hand.  A police officer on anti-pickpocketing duty witnessed the act and arrested him immediately. 

3.Under caution, he said that he stole the phone as he did not have one to use. 

Personal background and mitigation

4.The Defendant is 50 years of age.  He was born in Vietnam.  He became a Hong Kong citizen in 2000, the same year of his divorce after a 10-year marriage.  He had 23 convictions for theft, including 10 for pickpocketing, the last of which being sentenced in March 2016.  He was released from prison in September 2016.  It reflects that it took him less than a couple of weeks to commit the same offence again. 

Sentencing considerations

5.Mr. Tong refers me to 3 cases.  The first one is The Queen v Vy Van Kien HCMA 1162/1990 where the High Court on a magistracy appeal suggests a starting point of 12 – 15 months for a simple pickpocketing case in the absence of aggravating factors.  I understand that this range has been endorsed by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1 which also states that heavier sentences shall be imposed where the offence is committed in a place in which the public is at particular risk, such as crowded places like the MTR or the race course, crowded shopping areas where the pedestrian traffic is heavy, and where the defendant is a persistent offender.

6.The second case is HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830 to the effect that a heavier sentence is to be imposed on a persistent offender for more deterrence to protect the public.  

7.The third case is HKSAR v Lam Kwai Wa HCMA 1078/2002 as a gloss to Chan Pui Chi (above) to the effect that the increase in sentence has to be based on an assessment of the gravity of the category of offence involved and the degree of the defendant’s persistence as demonstrated by his criminal record. 

Sentencing this Defendant

8.I take 12 months as the starting point for the basic pickpocketing.  I add 9 months on it for the Defendant’s overwhelming recidivism and another 3 months for the offence to be committed in a very crowded location.  Out of the overall starting point of 24 months, I give him one-third discount for the plea of guilty.  The sentence is 16 months in the absence of other mitigating factors.