HKSAR v. Ip So

DCCC 730/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 730 OF 2017

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Theft". This is a pickpocketing case which took place on the streets in Central on a weekday.

Summary of Facts

2.About 6:25 p.m. on 22 June 2017 (a Thursday), in the vicinity of Queen's Road Central, the defendant's demeanour attracted the attention of a duty police officer in plainclothes.  The officer continued to observe the defendant and requested for back up from colleagues.

3.The defendant was seen following Madam KWOK (PW1; aged 39) who was carrying an unzipped handbag.  About 5 minutes later, outside Canton House, Nos.54-56 Queen's Road Central ("the Location"), the defendant inserted his left hand into PW1's handbag and took away her mobile phone ("the Phone").  PW1 did not notice that the Phone was taken away from her handbag.

4.After taking the Phone, the defendant immediately turned around to walk away.  Police officers intercepted him.  Upon search, the Phone was found in his left front trouser pocket.  PW1 later confirmed that the Phone belonged to her and it was in her handbag when she last saw it.

5.Under caution, the defendant admitted that he stole the Phone for his own use out of momentary greed.  In his subsequent video recorded interview, the defendant explained how he went to Central and how he committed the offence.

Mitigation & Sentence

6.The defendant is now 64. He has 23 conviction records, which included 17 theft-related offences (5 of which are specified as "pickpocketing"). Defence solicitor Mr. LAW informed me that the defendant is married with 2 children (aged 14 and 12). His wife and children reside in Hainan. The defendant regularly works as a waiter earning about $13,000 per month.

7.In mitigation, Mr. LAW submitted that on the day of his arrest, the defendant had been unemployed for a few weeks. On that day, he went to Western and Central to look for jobs. Mr. LAW further submitted that the defendant committed the present offence out of momentary greed. His youngest daughter was ill and needed money for surgery. Mr. LAW stressed that no weapons were found on the defendant and PW1's phone was recovered instantly.

8.Time after time, the court has expressed in very clear terms that being in financial difficulty (however serious) or having a sick family member is no mitigating factor for committing a crime. In modern Hong Kong, there is sufficient social welfare protection for the poor to meet their basic needs. Being a released prisoner, the defendant must know how to seek help.

9.The nature of this case appears to be pickpocketing simpliciter; however, the defendant being a persistent offender clearly constitutes an aggravating feature. Furthermore, I take judicial notice that any part of Queen's Road Central during the evening rush hours on a weekday must be a crowded place with heavy pedestrian traffic[1].

10.I have borne in mind the relevant sentencing authorities[2]. In this case, I adopt a starting point of 27 months' imprisonment. A one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 18 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 18 months' imprisonment.

11.The defendant's criminal record is an appalling one. The court can only do so much in deterring a repeated offender by way of a heavy penalty. Whilst the sentence must carry a deterrent effect, it cannot go out of proportion. To live a law-abiding life with dignity or to continue being a criminal is a matter entirely for him.