HKSAR v. Liu Bihua

DCCC1147/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1147 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

2.The Summary of Facts admitted by the Defendant disclosed that on 24 June 2010, she entered the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre as a visitor to participate in the June “Hong Kong Jewellery and Gem Fair 2010”. She, however, on two occasions which were just about 6 minutes apart, stretched her hand into the glass cabinet of the booth operated by Japan’s Enterprise Pearl Gems Ltd. The photographs which were provided to the court for examination showed that the cabinet was opened at the time.

3.On each occasion, after the Defendant had got hold of one pack of pearls, she pretended to be examining the pearls in front of the counter. Shortly afterwards, she then walked away with the pack of pearls. The two packs of pearls contained a total of 74 pieces of pearls with a total value of about HK$517,000.

4.The movement records showed that the Defendant entered Hong Kong from the Mainland in the morning of 23 June 2010 and departed in the afternoon of 25 June 2010.

5.The Defendant is now aged 42 and is single. She worked as a packer in a factory in the Mainland with a monthly salary of around RMB 1,800. The Defendant is not a first offender. She has been before the court on one previous occasion with two “theft” convictions. She was sentenced in September 2004 to a total of 6 months’ imprisonment.

6.In mitigation, it was said that the Defendant has been suffering from hypertension and heart problem. Prior to her arrest, she was living with her bed-ridden 76-year-old step-father who relied on her to look after him.

7.It was also submitted by counsel that the theft committed by the Defendant is not sophisticated and was not pre-planned as she registered at the exhibition hall with her real name. At the time, the Defendant merely took out the pearls for examination, and seeing that no one was paying attention to her, she then stole the pearls in question. Miss Lee also told the court that after returning to the Mainland, and not realizing that the pearls worth over HK$½M, the Defendant then sold the pearls for RMB 30,000.  

8.In this case, I notice that the Defendant committed the theft when she was a visitor in this place. She came to Hong Kong one day before she committed the theft. She then left in the following afternoon after she had stolen the pearls. Anyone who tries to enter the territory to commit offences here should be deterred.

9.Moreover, the place at which the theft took place was in the Convention and Exhibition Centre. At the time, a jewellery fair was being held. I am sure that the Defendant sought to make use of the opportunity when the exhibition hall would be relatively crowded and busy to commit the theft.

10.Moreover, like the present case in which the victim company was a Japanese company, this sort of exhibitions would usually involve overseas participants. No doubt, exhibitions of this kind would help promoting international trade and would help Hong Kong’s status as an international city. In order to ensure that such exhibitions could be conducted smoothly and safely in Hong Kong and in order to protect the reputation of Hong Kong, I consider that a deterrent sentence should be passed in order to stop like-minded people from committing such theft offences at the time when exhibitions are on-going.

11.Given the facts of this case and the aggravating factors mentioned above, I consider that a starting point of 2½ years to be appropriate. Apart from the Defendant’s plea, I do not see any other mitigating factors which would warrant a further reduction in sentence. Her claim of poor health and the need to look after her aged step-father are matters which the Defendant was well aware of before the commission of the present offence. She should think long and hard before committing the theft. Such personal circumstances cannot assist her in her mitigation.

12.2½ years reduced by one-third is 20 months’ imprisonment. I therefore order that a term of 20 months be imposed in respect of the theft charge to which the Defendant pleaded guilty.