HKSAR v. Vera Carrasco Israel Jacob and Another
|
DCCC497/2011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 497 OF 2011 ----------------------
----------------------
-------------------------- Reasons for Sentence -------------------------- 1.Both the 1st and 2nd defendants have pleaded guilty to their respective charges. Both are jointly charged, where the 1st,2nd and 3rd charges are concerned, with theft, the last charge, the 4th charge, the 1st defendant is charged with going equipped for stealing. They are both visitors to Hong Kong from Chile. The 1st defendant is 18 years old; the 2nd defendant is 26 years old. 2.I have heard in mitigation that they met in Chile playing football and came to Hong Kong to holiday together. This is despite both having their own family and young children at home, the 2nd defendant has a pregnant girlfriend as well. I am not convinced that they were here only to sightsee and tour Hong Kong. Both arrived here on 11 March. 3.Charge 1 refers to a theft on 28 March in the Tsim Sha Tsui area. Both defendants have admitted stealing three Rolex watches from a locked display cabinet. The total value is just over $52,000. CCTV camera footage shows them both approach the locked cabinet display and act suspiciously. 4.Charge 2 is a theft committed on 29 March, the following date, again in Tsim Sha Tsui. Similarly a laptop locked in a cabinet was found missing. Staff members discovered the laptop missing and viewed CCTV footage. Both defendants are seen approaching the locked cabinet. The 1st defendant opened the locked cabinet with an unknown object and stole the Samsung laptop whilst 2nd defendant acted as a lookout. They are seen leaving the shop immediately. 5.On the same day, not long after, police officers spotted the defendants and started to follow them because their suspicions were aroused by their behaviour. They followed the defendants into the Grand Stanford Inter Continental Hotel in Tsim Sha Tsui. They were observed very professionally stealing a rucksack of a person in the lobby. The 1st defendant stealthily took it and handled it to the 2nd defendant; as both left the hotel were intercepted by the police. 6.The laptop previously stolen that day was found in the 2nd defendant’s possession, a screwdriver was found in the 1st defendant’s possession and the three stolen watches from the day before were found in their guesthouse room that they had rented. 7.I have heard mitigation in full by both counsel. Both defendants have a clear record in Hong Kong. However, that is not a significant mitigating factor as they are not Hong Kong residents or citizens. I have also taken into account that they are not Hong Kong residents and foreigners, and to some extent may face a hardship in custody. However, that again is not a factor that will attract a more lenient approach. They have chosen to come to Hong Kong, they have chosen to commit a crime here, and they must have foreseen the consequence if they were arrested and convicted of these offences here. 8.For shop theft, Charges 1 and 2, the factors I consider relevant are the following: they acted in concert, there are two of them; the value of the watches and the laptop. Charge 3 would be akin in my view to pick-pocketing and if a victim of Charge 3 had lost personal items, he or she would suffer inconvenience. From the facts, my view is that both defendants were organised, professional and all were premeditated offences. 9.After considering all of the above factors, for Charge 1, I will take a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment. Charge 2, I take a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment, for Charge 3, I take a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment, and Charge 4, I take a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment. Obviously, each defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third for their pleas of guilty. 10.Accordingly, the 1st and 2nd defendants: Charge 1, you will be ordered to serve a 12 month term of imprisonment; for Charge 2, you will ordered to serve a 10 month term of imprisonment; for Charge 3, you will be ordered to serve an 8 month term of imprisonment; Charge 4, a 10 month term of imprisonment. They will be partly concurrent and partly consecutive. 11.For Charge 2, 2 months of the 10 months will be consecutive to Charge 1 and the balance concurrent. The balance of 8 months is concurrent to Charge 1. 12.For Charge 3, you are sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment. Again, 2 months of that 8 months will be consecutive to Charge 1 and the balance, 6 months, concurrent to Charge 1. 13.For Charge 4, only the 1st defendant faces Charge 4. You will be sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment. It will be wholly concurrent to Charge 1. That would be a total of 16 months’ imprisonment each, 1 year and 4 months.
|