HKSAR v. Wan Choi King

DCCC 666/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 666 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210, and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200.

2.The particulars of the offence are that on 5 June this year at the MTR Mong Kok station, the defendant attempted to steal from a Mr Song, a tourist in Hong Kong.

3.The facts of this case are very straightforward.

4.There were plainclothes police officers on duty inside the MTR Mong Kok station.  They observed the defendant looking at bags of passers-by.  This aroused their suspicion and they followed the defendant.

5.When on an escalator behind a male, the police officer who was also behind the defendant, the defendant was observed unzipping that male’s backpack who was in front of him.  The victim, the tourist, felt some movement behind him and turned to look at the defendant, thwarting the defendant’s attempt.

6.At this stage, the police intercepted the defendant.  The victim confirmed that his front pocket of his backpack was half-opened.  He also confirmed that nothing was missing from his bag.

7.The defendant today admits he was attempting to steal from this victim.  He was attempting to pick the pocket of this victim.

8.His best mitigation is his plea of guilty today. 

9.The defendant has 12 previous convictions, most of them offences related to dishonesty.  Specifically, four were identified as pickpocket offences.  His last conviction was in September 2011, where he was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment for pickpocketing.

10.The defendant is 59 years old.  He was married but now divorced.  He has two adult children who are living apart.  The defendant is no longer employed.  He was previously a construction site worker but suffered an employment-related injury.  He now lives alone and relies on CSSA and a disability allowance.

11.He does have an elderly mother living in Guangzhou, who is unfortunately suffering from cancer and has recently received treatment.

12.The defendant has written a letter of mitigation submitted to the court.

13.Mr Ng, on behalf of the defendant, has said all he can say in mitigation.

14.The fact is the defendant was caught red-handed in Mong Kok MTR station, attempting to steal from a hapless tourist.

15.Sentencing guidelines for pickpocketing exists. The authority I refer to and has been referred to me by Mr Ng is that of HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1.  The Court of Appeal took a very serious view of pickpocketing offences and said a 12- to 15-month term of imprisonment after trial would be appropriate for a first-time offender.  That starting point could be enhanced if aggravating factors exist, aggravating factors such as the defendant being a repeat, persistent offender or where there is a gang or syndicate operating as pickpockets.  If a defendant chooses a crowded place where the public is more at risk from pickpockets, that is also an aggravating factor.

16.The defendant’s criminal record is bad but not appalling.  I will not consider that as an aggravating factor, but I certainly do not consider him a first-time offender.

17.The only obvious aggravating factor is the fact he targeted a victim in the MTR station.  Mong Kok MTR is a crowded place from morning to night, where the public is most at risk from pickpockets.

18.Defendant, please stand up.

19.I do take into account the facts of the case, the defendant’s background and mitigation put forward.

20.I take a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment and I increase that by 3 months to reflect the aggravating factor I have just referred to.  That is a starting point of 21 months.

21.The defendant has pleaded guilty and is entitled to a discount of one-third.

22.For this offence, the defendant is sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment.