HKSAR v. Indra Irawan

DCCC 6/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 6 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of theft and was convicted accordingly.

2.The prosecution’s case disclosed that at about 4:35 pm on 19 November 2013 PW1, Chau, and his wife went to a currency exchange shop at Castle Peak Road, Yuen Long.  They exchanged RMB$50,000 into HK$63,400.  PW1 gave HK$50,000 to his wife and bundled HK$10,000, which comprises of 100 pieces of $100-banknotes, into a pile with a rubber band.  PW1 put the money into his black shoulderbag.  PW1 then parted with his wife.

3.When PW1 reached Prosper Centre at Sau Fu Street, Yuen Long, an unknown male (male A) suddenly used his right hand to block the way of PW1.  PW1 had to stop in front of male A.  When PW1 moved a step backward, he found his way was also blocked by someone.  PW1 turned his head and saw the defendant.   When PW1 turned back to his front, he found male A walking past him quickly.  PW1 checked his shoulderbag and it was unzipped. PW1 saw male A, who was carrying a dark blue rucksack, walking away hurriedly.  The defendant remained standing behind PW1.

4.PW1 asked the defendant if he wanted to steal PW1’s mobile phone.  Defendant used his phone to talk to someone.  PW1 checked the bag and found the cash in the bundle of $10,000 went missing. 

5.The defendant walked away quickly and went into an alley at Sau Fu Street.  PW1 followed the defendant and told the defendant to stop. 

6.Eventually, PW1 intercepted the defendant at No. 33 Sau Fu Street where the defendant attempted to climb over the railing. 

7.A policeman soon arrived at the scene and arrested the defendant.

8.Later, the defendant was brought to the police station and was interviewed with the assistance of an Indonesian interpreter.

9.Under caution, the defendant admitted, inter alia, that, he and his friend stole the money from PW1.  He alleged that he threw away the money.

10.Subsequently, the defendant was further interviewed with the assistance of an Indonesian interpreter.  The defendant admitted that he went to Yuen Long under the lead of his friend.  They saw PW1’s bag which was not completely zipped up.  They decided to steal the wallet inside the bag.  His friend unzipped the bag and took away the money.  He was scared when PW1 discovered the stealing.  He threw away the money.

11.It transpired that the defendant is a visitor and he entered Hong Kong from Indonesia on 14 November 2013.

Mitigation

12.The defendant is now aged 34, married with two children and was educated up to Primary 6 level.  He has no criminal record in Hong Kong.  The defendant was a fruit hawker earning about HK$2,000 per month.  The defendant is the breadwinner of the extended family. 

13.One of his friends persuaded the defendant to come to Hong Kong to make easy money.  The defendant came to Hong Kong on 14 November and he was the one to pay for the air ticket.  It was submitted that the defendant was not a member of the organised gang.  The present offence was committed by the defendant and his friend. 

14.There was forthright admission right from the start and the court was urged to show leniency to the defendant.

15.The defendant would not disclose the identity of his friend.

Sentence

16.The facts of this case was rather unusual in that the defendant alleged that he threw away the loot of HK$10,000 when he was about to be caught. 

17.The prosecution could only rely on the defendant’s admission to prove his case.  Based on what was said by the defendant, he committed the theft with another accomplice, which is still at large.  The defendant came to Hong Kong as a visitor, just five days before committing the present crime. 

18.I would not speculate whether the defendant and/or his gang had committed other crimes before 19 November, as their purpose of coming to Hong Kong was to make easy money. 

19.There is no dispute that there was an international element in this case.  The crime was committed in a crowded street and apparently the defendant and his friend targeted the victim probably when the latter exchanged money from the exchange shop.

The defendant has a clear record in Hong Kong and he did not use weapon to commit the crime. There is no evidence that the defendant is part of an organised and professional ring of thieves.

20.I consider the sentencing principles and factors as enunciated in the cases HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1 and HKSAR v Sandagdorj Altankhuyag & Anor [2014] 1 HKC 206. 

21.As usual, in view of the defendant’s plea, there will be one-third discount in sentence. 

22.Taking all factors into account, I would adopt a starting point of 2 years and reduce the sentence to 16 months.

Please refer to CACC80/2014 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.