The Queen v. Tong Siu Wang

HCMA000976/1991

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

HEADNOTE

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

SENTENCE - PERSISTENT PICKPOCKET - MULTIPLE - CHARGES-TOTALITY PRINCIPLE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 976 OF 1991

BETWEEN

Coram: Hon. Bewley, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 18 December 1991

Date of delivery of judgment: 18 December 1991

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant pleaded guilty in San Po Kong Magistrates Court to' one charge of attempted theft and to ten charges of theft and was sentenced by Mr Li to a total of 35 months imprisonment.

2. The appellant was caught red-handed when attempting to steal from a tourist's rucksack in Kowloon Tong MTR Station. The other offences - also pickpocket offences in the same station - came to light following the discovery in his possession of eight stored value tickets, two identity cards and two phone cards. The appellant admitted following the victims during rush hour and stealing their wallets from handbag or travelling bag. Seven of the victims could not be located.

3. The appellant has four previous convictions for dishonesty. In his Reasons for Sentence the magistrate said:-

"I was aware that the total term of 35 months imprisonment was beyond the usual sentence a pick-pocket expects to get but in this case, the Appellant committed eleven separate offences, all pick-pocketing in a crowded MTR station, and being a persistent offender who had just been released from prison, a longer term of imprisonment was necessary to deter arid prevent him from further committing similar acts to members of the public who had every right to be protected from criminals of this kind."

4. A sentence substantially heavier than that appropriate, for a single offence was necessary in this case, but the magistrate has offended the totality principle. See D.A. Thomas 'Principles of Sentencing' 2nd Ed. pages 56-61. Looking at the appellant's criminal behaviour as a whole the sentence passed is too severe. The appeal is allowed and the sentence reduced to a total of 2 1/2 years made up as follows: two years on charges A - C, to run concurrently, six months on charges D - K, also to run concurrently but consecutive to the sentences in charges A - C.

Representation:

Miss P. Lee, Senior Crown Counsel, for Crown.

Mr G. Holland (D.L.A.) for Appellant.