HKSAR v. Ma Sai Yuk
|
DCCC402/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 402 OF 2010 --------------------
--------------------
--------------------------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------------------------- 1.The defendant in this case pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted theft. 2.The particulars state that on 16 March at the escalator no. E4 of platform no. 3 of the MTR at Mongkok, she attempted to steal from a lady called Madam Yip. The facts disclosed that at 5.30 on 16 March 2010 the victim alighted from the MTR at no. 3 platform at the Mongkok MTR Station. She walked towards one of the escalators carrying her handbag in her left arm. It was crowded and PW1 had to queue up to step onto the escalator. 3.As PW1 was queuing up, she looked on her left side and saw a hand inside her handbag. She turned round and saw that the hand belonged to the defendant. She confronted the defendant. The lady checked her handbag and found that there was nothing missing. She did not persist and proceeded to step up the escalator. 4.When the victim got near to the turnstiles of the exit for the Mongkok station, she saw a uniformed police officer and told that police officer what had happened. Together with the officer, they went into the station and identified the defendant near the turnstiles of one of the exits. The defendant was arrested and then later charged with this offence. 5.As counsel for the defendant rightly concedes, the defendant has an appalling record. She has 54 previous court appearances. Thirty-four of those appearances were for matters of theft and six were for pick-pocketing. Her last conviction was in October of 2009 when she was sentenced to 10 weeks’ imprisonment and so would have been released from prison shortly before the commission of this offence. 6.The defendant is 55 years of age. She was born in Hong Kong. She was married but divorced some 10 years ago and there were no children. She has been unemployed for a long time and lives on public assistance. On the last occasion, I was told that there was a psychiatric history and I adjourned the case so that I could have the advantage of psychiatric reports. 7.Now, those reports disclose that the defendant has a history of substance abuse since the age of 20. She used heroin by injection with features of dependence. And she was diagnosed in 1992 with poly-substance abuse and anti-social personality disorder. She has a history of displaying temper repeatedly with a history of throwing case notes towards the doctor during her psychiatric follow-up and damaging the glass door in the department. 8.And she has followed up at the West Kowloon Psychiatric Centre and claimed to be hearing non-existent voices. Both doctors opine that there is no other sign of any mental disturbance and inpatient psychiatric treatment is not warranted. It is recommended that she receives outpatient psychiatric treatment. 9.As counsel rightly acknowledges, the courts have said that these matters must be dealt with by a substantial custodial sentence. The lead authority is the case of HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy which is reported at [2005] 2 HKLRD at page 1. This case recognises that the problem of pick‑pocketing in busy places in Hong Kong is endemic. I note that this offence was committed at the Mongkok station at 5.30, a particularly busy time and, of course, a time when a pickpocket like yourself would know that it was going to be busy and make the best of the opportunities available. 10.For the offence itself, I take a starting point of 15 months. The defendant has an appalling record, so I increase that by 9 months. It was committed at a crowded area and that is an aggravating feature which attracts a further penalty of 3 months. The total sentence, therefore, will be one of 27 months. That is the starting point. You are entitled to that to be reduced because you pleaded guilty, so I will give you the usual discount for your guilty plea. The sentence, therefore, will be one of 18 months' imprisonment.
|