HKSAR v. Xia Houlin

DCCC 932/2018

[2019] HKDC403

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 932 OF 2018

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant, a resident of Mainland China, pleads guilty to one charge of behaving in a disorderly manner on board a non-Hong Kong- controlled aircraft, contrary to sections 12B(3),12B(10) and 21 of the Aviation Security Ordinance[1].

2.In summary on 7 September last year while travelling from Yangon to Hong Kong on Myanmar National Airlines flight UB8027 the defendant stole the property of two other passengers on the plane. 

1st theft

3.Mr Ho was sitting in seat 8D whereas the defendant was sitting in seat 7C.  Mr Ho placed in the overhead compartment above his seat his bag containing a ruby bracelet valued at HK$600 and two wallets, one wallet containing US$2,600 and the other wallet containing HK$3,000, RMB¥700 and THB฿3,640. 

4.When Mr Ho went to the toilet Mr Pak who was sitting in seat 10C witnessed the defendant stand up and open the overhead compartment above seat 8D and steal the property of Mr Ho. 

5.When Mr Ho returned from the toilet he saw that the overhead compartment was open. After checking his bag Mr Ho discovered that all the cash had been removed from his wallets and replaced with twelve US$1 banknotes and one US$2 banknote.  The ruby bracelet was also missing. 

6.Mr Ho alerted other passengers and the crew that his property was stolen at which time the defendant suddenly stood up and gave Mr Ho the cash and the bracelet.

2nd theft

7.After Mr Ho alerted the other passengers Mr Chen who was sitting in seat 6D checked his backpack which was placed in the overhead compartment above his seat.  Mr Chen discovered that HK$1,000, RMB¥7,800 and one credit card was missing from his wallet. 

8.Mr Chen saw that the crew had first moved the defendant to seat 6C and later to 7C.  When the defendant was moved to seat 7C Mr Chen noticed a white paper bag under seat 6C.  The paper bag was later found to contain the cash and credit card stolen from Mr Chen’s wallet. 

Arrest

9.When the plane landed in Hong Kong the defendant was arrested.  Ninety-six KHR 1,000 banknotes were found under seat 7C and seventy-three US$1 banknotes were found under seat 7B. 

10.Under caution the defendant admitted, inter alia, that he stole from Mr Ho when Mr Ho went to the toilet; when Mr Ho discovered the theft he returned the cash and bracelet to Mr Ho; he stole cash and a credit card from Mr Chen’s wallet which he placed inside a paper bag; when the theft was discovered he threw the paper bag away; he threw the KHR 1,000 banknotes and the US$1 banknotes under the seat and he would use the banknotes to replace the money stolen so that the victims would not discover their money had been stolen. 

Mitigation

11.I have carefully considered the written and oral submissions of Ms Lui together with the mitigation letters written by the defendant and his eldest son.  I take into account the health of the defendant’s mother and that his wife having divorced him, the defendant is responsible for looking after the three children of the family.  The defendant is the sole breadwinner of a family of six and in his absence the defendant’s father has been looking after the children and borrowing money to pay their school fees[2].

12.I take into account the defendant has a clear record however this carries little weight where the defendant is not a resident of Hong Kong. 

Sentence

13.I do not agree the offence was committed out of momentary greed as stated in the defendant’s mitigation letter.  The offence was clearly well planned taking US$1 banknotes and KHR 1,000 banknotes to replace the money stolen thereby making it look as though no money had been stolen. 

14.I regard this a serious offence.  To maintain good order and discipline on an aircraft all travellers on planes must be able to feel safe in the knowledge their property will not be stolen when for example they go to the toilet or fall asleep. 

15.Ms Lui refers me to the reasons for sentence in five cases to show the range of sentence imposed in similar cases together with a table summarising the cases[3].  The cases show that a starting point of between 9-15 months’ imprisonment has been adopted. 

16.In DCCC 925/2017 I adopted a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment where a watch and US$1,000 was stolen from the overhead compartment.  US$1 banknotes were also used to cover up the theft.

17.I am satisfied the present case is more serious.  The defendant stole not only money but also a bracelet from Mr Ho; the amount of money in the first theft was over HK$25,000; there was two thefts and the defendant also used low value banknotes to give the appearance no money had been stolen.

18.I take into account both Mr Ho and Mr Chen have suffered no loss. 

19.In all the circumstances I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial is 1 year and 6 months’ imprisonment.  Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.