HKSAR v. Pham Van Truong

DCCC 732/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 732 OF 2017

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Theft". This is a pickpocketing case which took place at a grocery store.

Summary of Facts

2.About 7:00 p.m. on 5 June 2017, Madam WANG (PW1; aged 51) and her friend were shopping at a grocery store situated at Ground Floor, Nos.52-62 Tuen Mun Heung Sze Wui Road, Tuen Mun ("the Shop").  Soon after they left the Shop, PW1 discovered her "LV" brand wallet ("the Wallet") missing from her rucksack.  The Wallet contained an Exit/Entry Permit for Travelling to Hong Kong & Macau, RMB1,100 cash, 2 ATM cards, a PRC Resident Identity Card and HK$400 cash.

3.CCTV footage of the Shop revealed that about 7:12 p.m. on 5 June 2017, a male wearing a white T-shirt, a blue short-sleeve shirt, a pair of white shorts with black patterns and a pair of slippers ("the Culprit") took the Wallet from PW1's rucksack and placed it in his plastic bag.  The Culprit then left the Shop.  All of the above took place within 1 minute.

4.About 9:45 in the same evening, in the vicinity of Ground Floor, Ying Tai House, Fu Tai Estate, Tuen Mun, police officers stopped the defendant for enquiry.  He was then wearing a white T-shirt, a pair of white shorts with black patterns and a pair of slippers.  His appearance was very similar to the Culprit as seen in the CCTV footage of the Shop.

5.Under caution, the defendant claimed that around 7:00 in the same evening, he went to San Hui, Tuen Mun.  He just picked up an identity document and discarded it at San Hui.  He said he could lead the police officers to the location where he discarded the identity document.

6.About 10:15 in the same evening, the defendant helped the police officers retrieve PW1's Exit/Entry Permit for Travelling to Hong Kong & Macau from the roadside grass at San Wo Lane, Tuen Mun.

7.Police officers searched the defendant's home situated at Ying Tai House at 4:05 a.m. on 6 June 2017.  A blue short-sleeve shirt was found in a basket placed inside the bathroom.  Following that, the Wallet was found in a wardrobe placed inside the defendant's bedroom.  At that time, the Wallet contained RMB59.  Under caution, the defendant claimed that a female dropped the Wallet and he picked it up.

8.In his cautioned interview, the defendant claimed that he picked up the Wallet near San Hui Market.  It contained some bankcards and identity documents.  He took the Wallet home and discarded the bankcards and identity documents outside a playground at San Wo Lane.

Mitigation & Sentence

9.The defendant is now 47. He has 26 conviction records, which included 23 theft-related offences (3 of which are specified as "pickpocketing"). Defence solicitor Mr. CHIU informed me that the defendant came to Hong Kong from Vietnam as a refugee in 1988. His ex-wife and daughter are now living in Britain; he has lost contact with them. The defendant now resides with his girlfriend. They have a daughter (aged 6). The defendant's girlfriend also has 4 children of her own (aged 9 to 20). The defendant was a casual construction worker earning $12,000 per month, but had not been called to work for 2 months at the time of arrest.

10.In mitigation, Mr. CHIU submitted that the defendant committed the present offence out of greed since he was in need of money. No weapons were used and the defendant acted alone in an unsophisticated manner. The defendant assisted the Police to retrieve PW1's travelling document. Her wallet and some Renminbi cash were also recovered.

11.Time after time, the court has expressed in very clear terms that being in financial difficulty (however serious) 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.

12.The nature of this case appears to be pickpocketing[1] simpliciter; however, the defendant being a persistent offender clearly constitutes an aggravating feature. The Summary of Facts is silent on how crowded the crime scene was. I give the benefit of doubt to the defendant.

13.I have borne in mind the relevant sentencing authorities[2]. In this case, based on the value and nature of the stolen properties; the loss suffered by PW1; and the despicable way in which the defendant abandoned items of no monetary value to him but of significant importance to the owner, I adopt a starting point of 15 months' imprisonment. I will enhance it by 9 months for the defendant's long history of theft-related convictions. Thus, arriving at a starting point of 24 months. A one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 16 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 16 months' imprisonment.

14.The defendant's criminal record is an appalling one. He arrived at Hong Kong in 1988. He began to get into trouble with the law in 1990 and has since spent most of his time in and out of prison. 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.