HKSAR v. Phan Nang Minh

DCCC 794/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 794 OF 2012

____________

_______________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_______________________

1.The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

2.The theft is one of pickpocketing. Briefly at about 7:55 p.m. on the 31st July this year the police noticed the defendant walking along Dundas Street in Mongkok. On reaching the junction with Tung Choi Street the defendant suddenly walked quickly and came close to a young woman, Miss Lam. The defendant stretched out his right hand and took out Miss Lam’s iPhone from the left pocket of her jacket.

3.PC 58426 approached and intercepted the defendant. The defendant put up a struggle and threw the iPhone on to the ground. PC 33839 arrested the defendant. Under caution the defendant admitted stealing the iPhone because he had no money to go to work and that he intended to sell the phone to obtain money.

4.In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Miss Cheung, including that the defendant has a wife and young child in Vietnam to take care of.

5.In HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy[2005] 2 HKLRD 1 as applied in HKSAR v Duong Van Dung & others CACC 284/2004 the Court of Appeal confirmed the guideline sentence for pickpocketing after trial is 12 to 15 months imprisonment for a first offender, where there are no aggravating features. Aggravating features include where the offence is committed in a place in which the public is at particular risk, such as crowded areas where the pedestrian traffic is heavy.  In the cited cases all offences were committed, as in the present case, in Mongkok, which is well known to be crowded particularly in the early evening.

6.The fact an accused is a persistent offender is also an aggravating feature.  The defendant has appeared in court on 29 occasions amassing a total of 37 convictions with 28 involving dishonesty, 7 specifically stated to be pickpocketing. The last appearance was before the District Court on the 17th May 2011 in DCCC 71/2011, on three charges of theft, all pickpocketing. Although the reasons for sentence are in Chinese I have had the benefit of my interpreter translating the reasons to me. I note one offence was committed in the exact same location as the present offence. 

7.The sentencing judge took starting points of 27 months imprisonment in respect of each of the three offences. A total of 28 months imprisonment was imposed from which sentence the defendant was released from prison on the 13th July this year, some 18 days prior to the commission of the present offence.

8.Taking into account an iPhone was stolen I am satisfied that the initial starting point after trial is one of 15 months imprisonment (see for example HKSAR v Liu Lin-feng CACC 206/2011). By reason of the aggravating features that the offence was committed in the early evening in Mongkok, at a time when the streets are crowded, and that the defendant is a persistent offender, I am satisfied the starting point is to be increased to 30 months imprisonment (see for example HKSAR v Doan Van Do CACC 286/2004 heard together with HKSAR v Duong Van Dung CACC 284/2004).

9.Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 8 months imprisonment.