HKSAR v. Jimmy Andrean and Others
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 395/2018 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment.
1. D1 – D4 are Indonesians. They plead guilty to a joint charge of theft (1 st Charge). D2 – D4 each pleads to an individual charge of breach of deportation order (2 nd – 4 th Charges).
Cites 3 cases
|
DCCC 395/2018 [2018] HKDC 1427 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 395 OF 2018 -----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
---------------------------- Reasons for Sentence ---------------------------- Charges 1.D1 – D4 are Indonesians. They plead guilty to a joint charge of theft (1st Charge). D2 – D4 each pleads to an individual charge of breach of deportation order (2nd – 4th Charges). 1st Charge 2.On 2 February 2018 (Date of Theft), sometime after 3:15 pm, Mr MA (PW1, aged 62) obtained HKD 140,000 cash (the “Money”) from the HSBC branch (the “HSBC”) at 2/F Pioneer Centre, 750 Nathan Road, Mong Kok, Hong Kong. PW1 put the Money into his cross-body bag and zipped it. He left Pioneer Centre, but soon decided to return to the HSBC to check his HSBC account balance. 3.When PW1 was taking escalator no. 2 up from G/F of Pioneer Centre, PW1 felt a tug at the bag. PW1 was on the phone at the time and did not pay attention. Once the escalator moved up one or two steps, PW1 checked his bag and found the Money missing. PW1 reported the case to the police. 4.CCTVs of the HSBC and of Pioneer Centre captured the following—
Arrest of D1 – D4 5.On 6 February 2018, the police arrested D1 in Tsim Sha Tsui. 6.On 6 February 2018, the police arrested D2 and D3 about to depart for Macau at China Ferry Terminal, Tsim Sha Tsui. 7.On 16 February 2018, the police arrested D4 at Hong Kong International Airport. Police enquiries 8.The police conducted cautioned interviews assisted by Indonesian interpreters. 9.D1 – D4 all admitted stealing the Money together. Each further described the way to share the Money. 10.D1’s version was that he did not know how much money there was. He passed the Money to D4, who said it was for the four of them. D4 gave him around HKD 7,000 to spend in Hong Kong. D4 was to bring the remainder of the Money to share in Indonesia. 11.D2’s version was that he had received HKD 10,000. He did not know how much the others received. He gave D4 his address as D4 said the remainder of the Money would be shared by them in Indonesia. 12.D3’s version was that he had received HKD 25,000. He did not know how many people shared the Money. The police had seized from him HKD 3,360 cash and the Samsung mobile phone newly bought as the remainder of his share. 13.D4’s version was that the Money had been split equally. The HKD 821 cash seized by the police was the remainder of his share. Immigration records of D1 – D4 14.D1 had been in Hong Kong since 11 January 2018. 15.D2 was the subject of a deportation order issued on 3 October 2013 in his other name. He was deported on 9 October 2013. He had entered Hong Kong by his present name on 14 January 2018 in breach of the deportation order. 16.D3 was the subject of a deportation order issued on 1 March 2012 in his other name. He was deported on 19 March 2012. He had entered Hong Kong by his present name on 11 January 2018 in breach of the deportation order. 17.D4 was the subject of a deportation order issued on 1 December 2005 in his other name. He was deported on 5 January 2006. He had entered Hong Kong by his present name on 2 February 2018 in breach of the deportation order. Mitigation 18.D1 is aged 39. D2 is aged 43. D3 is aged 37. D4 is aged 52. They lived in the same hostel in Chung King Mansion, Tsim Sha Tsui and knew each other before the offence. Their families are in Indonesia. D1 – D4 do not dispute that they came to Hong Kong to commit crimes to make money. 19.It is common ground in mitigation that all defendants shared the Money equally. 20.D1 has a clear record. D2 had two theft records, both resulting in imprisonment in 2008 and 2012 respectively. D3 had one theft record, resulting in imprisonment in 2011. D4 had one theft record, resulting in imprisonment in 2005. Their records were dated a few years back. I do not propose to aggravate their sentences because of their records. Sentencing considerations 21.In HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal laid down a guideline sentence of 12 to 15 months for pickpocketing after trial for a first time offender. A heavier sentence would be imposed where there were aggravating factors. 22.There is no tariff sentence for breach of deportation order. A fresh offender can expect 27 months before plea (HKSAR v Gabriel Malou Lantin [2004] HKCU 1065). 23.Where a deportee entered Hong Kong to commit an offence, the sentences are to be wholly consecutive (HKSAR v Gabriel Malou Lantin [2004] HKCU 1065; HKSAR v Wabhi Tri-Wahyu CACC 345/2014). Sentencing D1 – D4 24.It was more than a simple act of pickpocketing from an inattentive victim. The preparation for the job had taken the group much observation and waiting to target a victim at the bank and then decide how and when to lay hands on his property. They had come to Hong Kong to commit crimes to make money. I take a starting point of 27 months. I give a one-third discount for the pleas of guilty. The sentence is 18 months for each on the 1st Charge. 25.I take a starting point of 27 months for the first breach of deportation order applicable to D2 – D4 each. I give a one-third discount for the pleas of guilty. The sentence is 18 months on the 2nd – 4th Charges. 26.D1’s sentence is 18 months. D2 – D4’s sentence is each 36 months based on wholly consecutive terms.
|