HKSAR v. Roman Roman Romina Roxana and Others
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 178/2019 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 5 July 2019.
1. The 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd defendants pleaded guilty to one charge of “Theft”, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.
|
DCCC 178/2019 [2019] HKDC 921 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 178 OF 2019 -------------------------------
-------------------------------
--------------------------------------- REASONS FOR SENTENCE --------------------------------------- 1.The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants pleaded guilty to one charge of “Theft”, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210. BRIEF FACTS 2.At around 7:15 pm on 16 November 2018, PW1 Chan Chung Yin attended a money changer and took from it RMB880,000 (which is equivalent to HK$1 million) and placed it in his backpack. He then returned to his private car bearing registration number VU5188 which was parked outside No. 488 Shanghai Street, Mongkok, Kowloon and boarded his vehicle. PW1 placed the backpack in the front passenger seat of his vehicle. 3.The defendants and the two South American men must have been watching PW1 leaving the money changer and followed him. 4.One of the South American men intentionally dropped something at the back of PW1’s vehicle and knocked on it to catch his attention. As this took place, the defendants laid in ambush at the nearside of the vehicle on the pavement. The two South American men then pointed at various spots on the ground and PW1 alighted the vehicle and started picking up banknotes from the ground. 5.As PW1 alighted his vehicle, the 3rd defendant opened the vehicle’s front passenger’s door and took PW1’s backpack, whilst the 1st defendant stood behind the 3rd defendant and closed the vehicle’s door after the backpack was taken. In the meantime, the 2nd defendant intentionally stood in front of a bystander to block his view on what was happening. 6.The defendants and the two South American then took off. 7.PW1 found that his backpack had gone missing and reported the matter to the police. 8.Camera footage from a medium goods vehicle parked behind PW1’s vehicle was obtained by the police and it captured the incident. 9.On 19 November 2018, the defendants were seen walking together along Parkes Street. They were then arrested by the police. Upon arrest, the 1st defendant had on her cash ofHK$91,804.00, USD100 and Euro2,450. The 2nd defendant had on her cash of HK$116,492.80, USD1,104.00, Pound Sterling 350 and Euro 1.10. The 3rd defendant had on her cash of HK$119,153.80 and Australian Dollar 500. 10.Under caution, the 1st defendant stated, inter alia:-
11.Under caution, the 2nd defendant identified herself from a screen shot taken from the camera footage. 12.Under caution the 3rd defendant stated, inter alia:-
13.The 1st defendant entered Hong Kong as a visitor on 1 November 2018, whilst the 2nd and 3rd defendants entered Hong Kong as visitors on 31 October 2018. MITIGATION D1’s mitigation 14.Mr Hung, representing the 1st defendant, in his mitigation for his client said that the 1st defendant entered Hong Kong as a visitor on 1 November 2018 for the purpose of purchasing clothing for her merchandizing business in Chile and as a result, she met some bad people during social occasion and committed the present offence. 15.The 1st defendant has two teenage children, a boy and a girl who are presently under the care of her sick mother. Her younger sister just gave birth to her own child in June and could not render assistance to care for her children and their mother. Her family is in financial difficulties and both the 1st defendant’s mother and sister wrote to this court to plea for leniency so she could return home soon to take care of the family. 16.It is submitted that 1st defendant also has exhibited symptoms of self-mutilation and mental anxiety and has been prescribed medication for her condition whilst she was in custody at the Correctional Institution. D2’s mitigation 17.Mr Gopaoco, representing the 2nd defendant, in his mitigation for his client said that the 2nd defendant is now 60 years old. She is divorced with three adult children and four grandchildren. The 2nd defendant owned a small garment and clothing shop in Santiago. She came to Hong Kong to buy some garments for her business and met some bad people during social occasion and committed the present offence. 18.Her elder son had a brain surgery in 2015 and would have to undergo a second operation soon. 19.The 2nd defendant merely acted as a “lookout” and her role was less culpable than the others involved. She also wrote a letter to court to show her remorse. D3’s mitigation 20.Mr Littlewood, representing the 3rd defendant submitted that she is a widow with three children, all boys aged 22, 15 and 3 respectively. Her children are now taken care of by the eldest brother. 21.Her eldest son mitigated on her behalf and wrote a letter to court to plea for leniency. SENTENCE 22.I have grave doubts about all the defendants’ intention to come to Hong Kong for their merchandizing business. That said, since there is no evidence before me that they came to Hong Kong specifically to commit the present offence, I would not sentence them on this basis. 23.All the defendants have a clear record in Hong Kong. However, I would not place any weight on this factor in sentencing. 24.Mr Hung urged me to adopt a starting point for sentence not higher than 3 years and Mr Littlewood suggested that the present offence was akin to “pickpocketing” case with some aggravating factors. 25.In HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [ 2005] 2 HKLRD l, the starting for a first offender for pickpocketing offence is between 12-15 months’ imprisonment. Whilst there are some similar features between the present offence and pickpocketing, it would not be appropriate for me to take reference due to the various aggravating features in this case which should be viewed in a holistic approach. AGGRAVATING FEATURES – WELL PLANNED AND ORGANIZED 26.It would be fair to say that the South American men and the defendants did not happen to bump into the victim drawing monies from the money changer and took the opportunity to carry out the theft. They must have done some recee around the area and picked up the victim in the course. 27.The South American men played the role of diverting the victim’s attention and the remaining three Defendants, with the 1st and 2nd defendants both acting as a look out and the 3rd defendant carrying out the act of snatching the backpack from the vehicle. In the present offence, I can see no differentiation in their roles and without each of their participation, the crime might not be smoothly executed. 28.This is a well-planned and organized theft which is an aggravating feature in this case. VICTIM’S LOSS SUM AND INTERNATIONAL ELEMENT 29.The amount stolen is a substantial one, namely RMB880,000, which is equivalent to one million Hong Kong dollars. At the time of the arrest of the three defendants 2 days later, only approximately one third of the cash equivalent was found on them. 30.Further, the present offence involved a syndicate from South America which contained an international element. 31.Having considered all the matters including the aggravating features as aforementioned, I adopted a starting point of 3 years imprisonment for the present offence. I give the usual one third discount for their guilty pleas making the sentence be one of 24 months imprisonment. 32.I have considered the defendants’ hardship which they would be facing in serving custodial sentence in Hong Kong and the hardship which their families would face during their incarceration, I therefore give them an additional one month reduction in sentence. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants will each serve 23 months imprisonment.
|