HKSAR v. Wong Law Pun

DCCC 228/2022

[2022] HKDC 1476

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 228 OF 2022

------------------------

------------------------

--------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

--------------------------------------

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of theft (that is pick-pocketing of an iPhone value at about $8,500). 

The Facts

2.At around 6:40pm on 8 January 2022, PW1 walked from Cheung Sha Wan MTR station to Un Chau Shopping Centre.  She kept her iPhone 12 Pro in her cross body bag. 

3.As PW1 walked outside Un Lok House, Un Chau Estate, Cheung Sha Wan, a passer-by PW2, saw the defendant following closely behind PW1.  The defendant inserted his hand into PW1’s cross body bag and took out a mobile phone. 

4.PW2 asked the defendant why he was stealing.  The defendant did not reply, but handed in the phone to PW2 and ran away. 

5.PW2 shouted “stealing”.  PW1 turned around and also saw the defendant ran away. 

6.The defendant was intercepted by the passer-by in the vicinity. 

7.At the time of the offence, there were plenty of pedestrians in the street.  The other pedestrians were only around 1 to 2 meters away from PW1. 

8.The defendant was arrested and said under caution that he stole the phone out of momentary greed. 

Criminal record

9.The defendant has a long list of 15 criminal records with 11 theft convictions, with 9 consecutive pick pocketing records. 

Personal background

10.The defendant is now 63 years old, divorced in 2000.  His daughter is now 32 years old and she is in court today. 

11.The defendant used to be a transportation worker and a casual worker.  He suffered an industrial accident and as a result of which, his lung was damaged and was in ICU for treatment for about a year.  Now he has recovered, but he has difficulty to find job due to his age. 

12.He lives alone and receives public assistance at $6,000 per month. 

13.In August this year, the social welfare officer in the CSD informed him that the Housing Authority has allocated a public unit to him.  He is looking forward to start a new and stable life. 

14.In his mitigating letter today, he said that he is now remorseful, he vows not to commit any further offences in the future. 

Sentence

15.According to the sentencing guideline of pickpocketing as stated in HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy CACC 107/2004 that the starting point of 12 to 15 months after tail is appropriate for a first time offender. 

16.PW1 was not aware of the defendant took away her iPhone from her cross body bag, it showed that the defendant was very skillful in his act to steal from PW1.  The defendant must have known that the iPhone has high resell value, but the loss of the iPhone to PW1 would have caused her a great deal of inconvenience, as we all know that mobile phone is now part of our daily necessity and it contains many information and data. 

17.As such, I consider that a starting point of 15 months is appropriate in the present case. 

18.However, there are 2 aggravating factors justified the increased of sentence to the starting point :-

(a) Firstly, the defendant has a long list of appalling record. There are 11 criminal convictions related to theft. For the last 9 consecutive records, they were all pickpocketing since 2004 to 2018. He was released from prison in March 2019.

(b) His last conviction in 2018 was also theft of an iPhone in a busy district of Mongkok.

(c) The court took a starting point of 15 months and increased the sentence by another 12 months. He was sentenced to 20 months for his guilty plea. The Court also referred to the case HKSAR v Tsui Chiu Kwai (2012) HKC 1101 in sentence.

(d) In the present case, the past sentence clearly has no deterrent effect upon the defendant.

(e) As said in HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830 that one of the purposes of passing a deterrent sentence on the persistent offender is to protect the public at general.

(f) Similarly, in the judgement of paragraph 9(5) of HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1, the court said that “Where a poor previous record for similar offences exists, a court will be justified in imposing a substantially higher sentence.”

(g) I consider that it must be substantially high in order to deter the defendant from committing further similar offence. Otherwise, it simply loses its deterrent effect.

(h) Against this background, I consider that the starting point should adjust upward by an additional 15 months.

(i) Secondly, the offence was committed in a crowded area at about 6:45pm when most people had finished work and went for shopping. Other pedestrians were about 1 to 2 meters away from PW1.

(j) I add another 3 months to the sentence.

19.The total sentence arrives at 33 months (15 + 15 + 3 months), given his guilty plea, it comes down to 22 months. 

Order

20.The defendant is to serve a sentence of 22 months.