HKSAR v. Hung Wai-chun, Dee (also known as Hung Wai-chun, Bee)
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 582/2019 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment.
1. The Defendant pleads guilty to 9 charges of theft, each involving a mobile phone. Charge 9 involved, in addition, other personal belongings.
Cites 3 cases
|
DCCC 582/2019 [2020] HKDC 1253 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO.582 OF 2019 -----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
--------------------------- Reasons for Sentence ---------------------------- Charge 1.The Defendant pleads guilty to 9 charges of theft, each involving a mobile phone. Charge 9 involved, in addition, other personal belongings. 2.On each of the 9 occasions between 18 January 2019 and 8 March 2019, she had stolen a mobile phone by pickpocketing from inattentive females attending a shop or a mall. On the 9th occasion, she had stolen the victim’s handbag containing $4,000 cash, 3 bank cards, a credit card, a key bag, a Hong Kong identity card, a Home Visit Permit, and an iPhone 6 Plus. 3.On 15 March 2019, she was arrested by the police on the street. Under caution she admitted the offences. The stolen property, worth $49,756 in total as confirmed by the prosecution, could not be recovered. Mitigation 4.The Defendant is now 45 years old, a casual worker. Before the arrest, she worked as a cleaner. She lived with her parents. After being detained, she could no longer look after her bedridden father, who was ill. Her aged mother is also ill. 5.She had 36 theft records, 4 of which specified as pickpocketing. Her last two records were theft by pickpocketing. She was thereby sentenced to 14 months in 2016 and also 14 months in 2018. She was released from prison on 4 December 2018. Three weeks later, she began to commit the offences herein until arrested. Sentencing considerations 6.Her counsel Ms. Wong refers to 11 authorities. 7.In HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal has 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, which included:
8.In HKSAR v Wong King Shan DCCC 337/2017, Judge Dufton held that “in determining where in the range of 12 to 15 months a sentencing court should commence will depend on the facts of the case including the circumstances of the theft; the value of the property stolen; the age or vulnerability of the victim and the expertise used in the theft.” 9.Including Wong King Shan, these 8 District Court cases referred to are examples of how the courts aggravate the sentence for commission of the offence in crowded places or by a repeat offender. The increase is usually by several months, depending on the facts of each case. 10.In HKSAR v Wong Kang Sun [2014] 1 HKLRD 622, the Court of Appeal regarded that the defendant would not have known in advance what was in the outer pocket of the victim’s backpack when he committed the offence. It reduced the basic starting point from 15 months to 12 months, though affirming the aggravation by 9 months and 3 months respectively due to the defendant’s recidivism (ie 24 records for theft and 6 others for pickpocketing) and the venue being a crowded place. The eventual starting point was reduced from 27 months to 24 months. Present sentence 11.There is no suggestion by the prosecution that the offence venues are crowded places. This aggravating factor is not present here. 12.The theft of a mobile phone means procuring a wealth of personal data for the underworld. This leads to immense security and privacy problems for the victim. Charge 9 may be regarded as slightly more serious as the property stolen also involved 3 bank cards, a credit card, a Hong Kong identity card, and a Home Visit Permit. Yet there is no evidence that the victim had suffered incidental damage due to her bank cards or her identity documents being unlawfully used. I consider that 15 months shall adequately canvass the facts of Charge 9 and other charges. 13.For each charge, I add 9 months for her repeat offending. The eventual starting point is 24 months for each of Charges 1 –9. There is a one-third discount for her pleas of guilty. 14.Each charge relates to a separate theft. Consecutive sentences are warranted. However, after considering totality, I adjust the sentences as follows:
|