HKSAR v. Nguyen Van Tam

DCCC969/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 969 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

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

2.This offence took place in the afternoon of 8 September 2012.  The facts of this case show it is a classic pick-pocketing scenario.

3.Just prior to the offence police officers found the defendant acting suspiciously and put him under observation.  The police followed the defendant into the Pei Ho Street Market in Sham Shui Po.  They watched the defendant approach a middle-aged man shopping at a vegetable store.  The police watched the defendant approach the man from behind and put his hand into his shorts pocket and retrieve his wallet.  Those police officers immediately intercepted the defendant.    

4.He was arrested and cautioned.  Under caution he admitted he stole the wallet because he had no money at the time.  The victim suffered no loss.  The market was not crowded at that particular time. 

5.The defendant is a 58-year-old man whose criminal record is appalling.  He arrived in Hong Kong in 1981 and served his first sentence a year later, and thereafter has spent most of his adult life in and out of prison.  In total he has 36 previous convictions, of which 23 relate to offences of dishonesty.  And judging by the many significant terms of imprisonment imposed for theft offences, I am sure many were pick-pocketing offences.  Defendant can be described as a persistent offender, a recidivist.

6.The last time the defendant appeared in the District Court for a pick-pocketing offence was in April 2011.  The court case was DCCC262/2011.  In that case the defendant was sentenced to 18 months after a plea to a pick-pocketing offence.  That court took a 27 months starting point.  I have had the opportunity to see the reasons for that sentence imposed. 

7.I also referred myself to the pick-pocketing guidelines of HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2HKLRD.  Those guidelines were reiterated recently in HKSAR v Chan Mei Yee, Carman, CACC447/2009. Those guidelines suggested 12 to 15 month term of imprisonment after trial would be an appropriate starting point for a first time offender.  And it is clear that certain aggravating factors will enhance that sentence, such as an appalling record of many similar offences. 

8.In HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [1998] 2HKLRD 830, the Court of Appeal discusses a person’s previous criminal record and under what circumstances it will be considered an aggravating factor which will enhance a sentence.  The principles of this authority apply to this defendant here. 

9.This defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty.  The defendant’s reasons for an urgent need of money carries little weight in light of this serious offence.

10.I have considered mitigation, the defendant’s background, the facts of this case, and the aggravating factor of the defendant’s previous criminal record.  I find a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment appropriate.  For the defendant’s plea he is entitled to a discount of one-third. 

11.Defendant is sentenced to a term of 18 months’ imprisonment.