HKSAR v. Liu Jinjie

DCCC 496/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 496 OF 2013

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

2.In summary on the 18 March this year the defendant went to the Chow Tai Fook jewellery shop at No. 701 Nathan Road in Mongkok and asked to look at some 3 carat diamond rings.  Mr Wan a staff of the shop showed the defendant two rings valued at $548,000 and $668,000. 

3.After examining the rings for about 10 minutes the defendant told Mr Wan water was dripping on him from an air conditioner.  Mr Wan asked for assistance from his colleague Mr Lee, who was guarding the entrance of the shop.  At this juncture the defendant suddenly snatched the two diamond rings and ‘bolted’ out of the shop.

4.Mr Wan and Mr Lee chased after the defendant and managed to stop him about 60 meters from the shop.  The two diamond rings were recovered near to where the defendant was stopped, the defendant having thrown them on the ground.  The police arrived and arrested the defendant.  Under caution the defendant admitted stealing the diamond rings out of greed.

5.In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Chow, including the defendant is a casual decoration worker earning insufficient to look after his mother, wife and young baby son and therefore the defendant committed the offence out of financial need.  I have also considered the defendant’s mitigation letter.

6.The defendant says he acted out of a moment of greed.  I do not accept this.  On what I am told about the defendant’s earnings there was never any prospect of the defendant being able to afford any diamonds let alone very valuable ones.  Further the defendant only had with him HKD262 and RMB3 together with an ATM card, the account of which the card belonged to having about RMB1000.  Clearly therefore the defendant could not afford a diamond ring let alone a 3 carat diamond ring. 

7.The defendant went into the shop and specifically asked to look at some 3 carat diamond rings not just a ring which he might possibly be able to afford with the limited means available to him on that day.  I am satisfied the defendant went into the shop with the intention of distracting the staff at which point he would snatch the valuable rings and try make good his escape. 

8.Mr Chow asks that I treat the defendant as a person without a criminal record as his only conviction was in 1989.  On that occasion the defendant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 12 months imprisonment for being an illegal immigrant and using another’s identity card.  I do take into account the conviction was 24 years ago however the defendant not being a Hong Kong resident this fact carries little weight having arrived in Hong Kong on this occasion two days prior to the theft.

9.Whilst one cannot be sure the defendant came to Hong Kong to commit crime as the theft did not take place on the day of his arrival in Hong Kong or the following day tourists who come to Hong Kong thinking they can steal to support their livelihood must be deterred (see for example HKSAR v Aguilar Garcia Milner Javier CACC485/2012).

10.Taking into account all the circumstances including that the total value of the two diamond rings was just over $1.2 million dollars I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial is 3 years imprisonment.  Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.