Case Document

DCCC664/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 664 OF 2010

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

	HKSAR
	v.
	Dang Van Tuan

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

Before:

H H Judge Anthea Pang

Date:

26 July 2010 at 12.27 pm

Present:

Mr Jones Tsui Wo-chung, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Lee Kwok-lun, of Messrs Tai Tang & Chong, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant

Offence:

(1) Theft (盗竊罪)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.This morning, the defendant pleaded guilty before me to one charge of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2.The defendant admitted the Summary of Facts which revealed these: at about 1945 hours on 10 May 2010, PW1, a female, and PW2, her boyfriend, were walking together along Fuk Wah Street towards Shamshuipo MTR station. Suddenly, PW1 heard the alarm sound of the telephone string that was tied to her mobile phone. Upon checking her right skirt pocket, she found her mobile phone missing. She turned around and saw the defendant standing behind her and holding her phone.

3.With the assistance of a passer-by, PW2 managed to get back PW1’s phone from the defendant. The defendant then begged PW2 to let him go.

4.PW2 refused. A struggle then ensued, but the defendant eventually managed to flee. However in the course of escape, the defendant dropped his passport which then led to his arrest.

5.The defendant is now aged 39. He came to Hong Kong in 1988. He is married with two children aged 2 and 5 respectively. His family is now in Vietnam.

6.In 1990, which was 2 years after the defendant came to Hong Kong, he started transgressing the law. He has been convicted on 21 previous occasions, 11 of which are theft or attempted theft, with four being pickpocketing offences.

7.He was only released in March this year after being convicted of pickpocketing on 25 May 2009. Yet, within just 2 months’ time, he committed the present offence, that is, yet another pickpocketing offence.

8.It was said by Mr Lee for the defendant that he committed the present offence purely for financial reasons. Mr Lee told the court that after the defendant’s release from prison, he could not find any long-term job and could only take up casual work in construction sites.

9.It was said that as the defendant cannot speak fluent Cantonese, he has difficulty in finding a stable job. However, from whatever he earned, Mr Lee said the defendant remitted HK$2,000 to his family per month.

10.Mr Lee emphasised that the defendant is remorseful. He pleaded guilty and he is determined to turn over a new leaf.

11.Further, it was said that the victim did not suffer any loss as the mobile phone was recovered. It was also not the case in which the defendant was acting with others. He acted alone this time, and he did not use any tools. A lenient sentence is therefore asked for.

12.In HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal set out the guidelines and principles for sentencing this type of offence. Following those guidelines and principles, I am going to adopt a starting point of 15 months in the present case given the facts disclosed.

13.I note that the offence was committed in Fuk Wah Street, Shamshuipo, which, no doubt, is a crowded area. The time of the offence was said to have been 7.45 pm, which should be a time when people have finished work and heading either for home or for entertainment.

14.In short, it is not difficult to imagine that the place was busy and crowded at that time. For this, I am going to increase the starting point by 3 months.

15.Further, as mentioned above, the defendant has an appalling record with identical offences. It is also clear that he has not been deterred by the sentences previously imposed on him as he committed the present offence within just 2 months’ release from prison.

16.In the circumstances and in order to make the sentence effective in deterring him, I am going to add a further 12 months to the starting point.

17.As a result, a starting point of 30 months will be adopted.

18.In the case before me, there are no mitigating factors other than the defendant’s plea, for which he will be given a one-third reduction.

19.Therefore, the starting point of 30 months will be reduced to one of 20 months on account of his plea.

20.Defendant, stand up. You are therefore to serve a term of 20 months.