HKSAR v. Le Van Son and Another

DCCC65/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 65 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. Both defendants have pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted theft contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance Cap.210 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200, the particulars being that they, on 19 December 2009 at the junction of Argyle Street and Nathan Road, Mongkok, Kowloon, attempted to steal a mobile phone, the property of Yen Bao-hang.

2. The brief facts which both defendants have agreed indicate that at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon of 19 December 2009 which, incidentally, was a Saturday afternoon in the heart of Mongkok, patrolling officers saw the 1st and 2nd defendants whispering to one another with the 2nd defendant pointing his finger to the victim’s right front trouser pocket where there was a string attached to a mobile phone outside the pocket. 

3. When the victim stopped at the traffic light to cross the road, both defendants stood very close to her and it was the 1st defendant who pulled the string of the mobile phone out of the victim’s pocket whilst the 2nd defendant stretched out his coat in order to shield the action.  The attempt, however, was unsuccessful as the victim suddenly turned around and the 1st defendant released his hand.  Both defendants were immediately intercepted and arrested.

4. It has been suggested by the 2nd defendant’s solicitor in mitigation that this was not a joint enterprise.  I entirely disagree.  It clearly was.  Both defendants were acting in concert with the single intention of stealing the victim’s mobile phone. 

5. Both defendants have appalling criminal records.  The 1st defendant has 41 previous convictions some 17 of which are for theft or attempted theft and, indeed, his last conviction was for pickpocketing when he was imprisoned for 12 months. 

6. The 2nd defendant has 29 previous convictions, many of which are for theft and pickpocketing. 

7. There are aggravating features which relate to both defendants.  Firstly, the offence clearly took place in a crowded area; as I have said, the heart of Mongkok at 5 o’clock in the afternoon.  Although unsophisticated, the two defendants were clearly acting in concert to prey on unsuspecting victims.  Also the persistence of both defendants in committing this offence is an additional aggravating feature. 

8. In relation to each defendant I adopt as my starting point a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment.  I will enhance this by six months to take account of the aggravating features that I have identified, increasing the starting point to 2½ years’ imprisonment. 

9. Each defendant is entitled to a one-third discount in sentence to take account of their pleas of guilty which is the only mitigation there is, arriving at a sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment in respect of each defendant.