HKSAR v. Tang Kwok Keung (also known as Li Ching Keung)

DCCC 711/2024

[2025] HKDC 51

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 711 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The Defendant pleads guilty to a single charge of theft (pickpocketing)  contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance (Cap 210). The facts stated that on 5 February 2024, outside a grocery shop in Cheung Wong Road, Mongkok, the Defendant had stolen a mobile phone containing a mobile Octopus card, one wallet, a HKID card, a Home Visit Permit, HK$3,200 cash and 5 bank cards from the Victim’s unzipped handbag. The stolen property amounted to a total value of HK$8,400. The Defendant was later subdued by the salesperson of the same store on 18 March 2024.

The Defendant’s Mitigation and Antecedent Statement

2.The Defendant is 63 years old, and had lost contact with his children since his divorce.  He has received primary education and has been unemployed for about 10 years, and is on CSSA.  He moved to Hong Kong in 1979, and in the same year he acquired his first criminal record.  He has 30 previous convictions, which involved 28 charges concerning dishonesty.  He was released from prison on 6 August 2023 for his last conviction of theft in the form of pickpocketing, which sentence was passed on 24 October 2022. 

3.Defence submits that this case involves a lone thief without any hint of criminal organization.  Weapons and tools were not used.  The Defendant recognizes that he is a persistent offender, but there was no evidence suggesting that the offence of pickpocketing was on the rise in Hong Kong.  The Defendant urges the Court to consider that he had cleared himself of drug addiction, and therefore pass a lenient sentence so that he can try to regain contact with his children and turn a new leaf. 

Sentencing Considerations

4.I have considered the authorities submitted by the Defence.  It is not disputed that in the absence of aggravating factors, the starting point for a pickpocketing offence concerning a person of clear record ought to be 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment.  

5.Aggravating factors present in this case include the following:

(a)  the offence was committed at a crowded place, i.e. outside a grocery store in Mongkok where people were busy buying food after work;

(b)  the Defendant is a repeat offender with an appalling record for dishonesty related offences ever since his arrival in Hong Kong, in which case warrants a substantial enhancement (HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy CACC 107/2004);

(c)  the Defendant committed the present offence within 6 months after release from prison for the same offence of pickpocketing, which warrants an individual enhancement apart from the recidivism factor (HKSAR v Suen Ping [2023] HKDC 1739); and

(d)  the stolen property included a mobile phone, which had not been recovered.

6.In the circumstances, it is obvious that there should be enhancements to the starting point stated above due to the presence of aggravating features.  I shall adopt the starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment.  I shall make the following enhancements: 3 months for committing the offence in a crowded location; 12 months’ for the Defendant’s recidivism; 1 month for committing the offence shortly after release; and 3 months for stealing a mobile phone.  After considering the totality principle, I shall reduce the total period of enhancement from 19 months to 15 months.  The notional sentence after trial will arrive at 30 months’ imprisonment.

7.I am of the view that the only mitigating factor for the Defendant is his timely guilty plea. After allowing 1/3 discount for his guilty plea, the Defendant is sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.