HKSAR v. Vy Van Kien

DCCC 355/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 355 OF 2017

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.

2.At around 1320 hours on 7 March 2017, Madam Lam walking with her son (3 years old) along Ngau Tau Kok Road outside Amoy Plaza, she was carrying a backpack and she had also put her wallet and her mobile phone (iPhone 6, silver white colour) inside the pocket of her one-piece dress.

3.When she and her son were walking up the stairs of the footbridge outside exit B of the Kowloon Bay MTR Station which was crowded, she felt that someone had inserted a hand into the pocket of her dress and searched the pocket.  She immediately turned around and saw the defendant having inserted his hand into her dress pocket and tried to use his 2 fingers to take away her mobile phone.

4.Defendant immediately retreated his hand.  Madam Lam shouted “snatching”, but the defendant ignored and continued walking, 2 male passers-by then intercepted the defendant and made a report to the police.

5.Police arrived and arrested the defendant for attempted theft.  Under caution, defendant stated in Punti that he was in need of money and so he stole the mobile phone. Madam Lam checked and confirmed that nothing had been stolen from her and no damage had been caused to her property nor had she suffered any loss or injury.

6.Defendant is a Vietnamese aged 49, and he had 25 previous criminal convictions, mostly theft, of which 11 pickpocketing.  He was last sentenced to 16-month imprisonment in February 2016 for attempted theft.

7.Mr Lam for the defendant submits that the defendant came to Hong Kong in 1982 and received education only up to Primary 2.  Defendant divorced in 2008 and had a son 16 years old now living with his former wife in mainland China. Defendant works as a construction worker on a casual basis, earning about 8,000 per month, but he needs to spend various expenses around the same amount. 

8.In relation to the offence, Mr Lam further submits that the footbridge, though leading to MTR station, was not that busy at that material time.  Defendant saw Madam Lam’s mobile phone stuck out from her dress.  Out of greed, defendant committed the present offence.  There was eventually no loss suffered nor any injury suffered by Madam Lam.  Defendant now pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity and is now feeling very remorseful for what he has done and hopes for a lenient sentence.

9.Pickpocketing is a serious offence.  The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1 has set out the guidelines for sentence.  12 to 15 months after trial is appropriate for first-time offender.  Enhancement shall be made for persistent offenders and when it was committed in a crowded place.  No doubt the defendant is an opportunist and a repeated offender. 

10.Regarding the offence, I assess that 15 months’ imprisonment is appropriate as the starting point, and enhancement of 9 months altogether shall be made for his repeated offence and while it was also committed in a crowded place.  That makes a total of 24 months.  Upon defendant’s guilty plea, it shall be reduced to 16 months. Therefore, for the present offence, defendant is sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.