HKSAR v. Kwong Kei Shan

DCCC 185/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 185 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted theft.

2.The offence was committed in a market located at the Ground Floor of Chung Fu Plaza in Tin Shui Wai.  At 10.15 in the morning on 31 December 2012, a security guard at the market saw the defendant wandering around inside the market.  The defendant was looking at the personal belongings of the passers-by.  The security guard followed him.

3.At 10.20 am the defendant began to follow the victim in this case, Madam Su Aichun.  The victim is 32 years of age and was pushing a baby trolley in which there was her 1-year-old daughter.  She had her money and mobile phone in the right pocket of her jacket which had a zipper.

4.The defendant followed the victim to the meat store.  She lined up to pay for her purchase at the store and the defendant stood behind her.  The victim took her money from her pocket and paid for the purchase.  She put the remaining money back in the pocket and zipped it up. The defendant used his right hand to unzip the pocket and extended his hand inside the pocket.  At that precise moment, the victim moved as she was about to leave the store and the defendant withdrew his hand.  The defendant turned round and left and was intercepted by the security guard outside the store. 

5.The victim confirmed that she suffered no loss and the matter was reported to the police. 

6.The defendant told the police he was out of work and intended to steal money for food.  He admitted using his right hand to unzip the pocket and extending his hand into the pocket when the victim suddenly moved and he was unable to steal anything.  

7.The defendant has 29 previous convictions.  He has appeared before the court on 28 occasions.  22 of the convictions are for theft related matters and 7 specifically for pickpocketing.  His last conviction was as recent as 5 September 2011 when he was imprisoned for 18 months for pickpocketing and released from prison on 18 June 2012.

8.The defendant is 51 years of age.  He was born in China and educated to primary school level in China.  He came to Hong Kong in 1979 and has worked as a decoration worker when not in prison.  He is a drug addict.  His present wife is living in China.  He has married previously and has a son and daughter by a previous marriage.  I am told that his daughter is a student aged 13 and his son is 27 but unable to work due to incapacity caused in a traffic accident some 10 years ago.

9.The only mitigating factor in this case is the fact that the defendant has pleaded guilty at an early stage and admitted the offence when he was detained by the police.

10.The defendant has an appalling record and clearly sentences in the past have failed to deter this particular defendant. I note that on his last court appearance, he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for pickpocketing. 

11.The sentencing guidelines state that the normal sentence for an offence of pickpocketing in these circumstances would be a sentence of between 12 and 15 months.  Those with many previous similar convictions would receive an additional 9 months’ imprisonment to reflect the fact that the normal sentencing tariffs do not seem to deter them. 

12.I am told that although this particular offence was committed in a market, the market was not particularly crowded on the occasion in question.  But, in my view, this is still an aggravating feature because this is the type of place where pickpockets tend to prey on unsuspecting members of the public. 

13.What is particularly distasteful about this case is the fact that he chose to prey on a 32-year-old mother pushing a 1-year-old daughter in a trolley.  A lady in that position is particularly vulnerable because she is distracted and therefore makes an easy target. 

14.I therefore have decided in this case, given the appalling record of the defendant, given the fact that this was committed in a market and the circumstances of this particular offence, in my view, the starting point should be 18 months’ imprisonment and should be enhanced by a sentence of 9 months to reflect that the defendant has an appalling record and the normal sentences do not seem to deter him.  A further aggravating feature is that this was committed in a market. 

15.The total sentence of imprisonment therefore, in my view, should be 30 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant is entitled to credit for his guilty plea.  That sentence will therefore be reduced by one-third and this defendant will serve a sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment.