HKSAR v. Li Yumei and Another

DCCC 918/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 918 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Both defendants are jointly charged with theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2.The facts of this case show it is a pickpocketing scenario.  The victim was shopping in a busy crowded cosmetic shop in the notoriously busy Sai Yeung Choi Street South.  It was about 8 pm on the 21st August this year.  The victim felt that she was bumped twice but as it was crowded, she thought it was just jostling amongst customers.  When it came to her paying for items she had chosen, she found that her wallet was missing from her handbag.

3.She called the police and the police arrived and immediately watched the CCTV camera footage of the shop.  The police clearly saw both defendants target the victim, one distracted her whilst the other put her hand in the victim’s handbag and took out her wallet.  Both then left the shop.

4.Two police officers went outside the shop and had a look around the surrounding streets and very intuitively spotted the defendants.  Ultimately, they were identified as the two thieves acting in concert seen on the CCTV footage. 

5.In subsequent records of interview, the 1st defendant admitted stealing the wallet, taking out cash and dumping the wallet with its other items in a rubbish bin. 

6.The 2nd defendant admitted acting as a lookout.

7.Both defendants are mainlanders who entered Hong Kong from China that same day.

8.Subsequently, the police recovered $400 from the 1st defendant’s property and found the wallet and other items in a dustbin. 

9.Both defendants have a clear record in Hong Kong.  Both are 27 years old, married with a daughter.  Both defendants are deaf and dumb.  The difference is that the 1st defendant’s daughter was not born deaf or dumb whereas the 2nd defendant’s daughter was born deaf and dumb.  And as I have heard in mitigation, she is in need of a hearing aid which the 2nd defendant cannot afford.  I have also been told that the 2nd defendant’s partner has abandoned them and it is only the 2nd defendant who is left to fend for or care for her daughter.  The child is 8 years old.

10.Although this is a sad situation, this is a situation the defendant was well aware of before she came to Hong Kong and committed this offence.

11.Defence counsel, Miss Chow, has said all she can say in mitigation for both defendants.

12.The best mitigation today is their pleas of guilty.  I would also take into account this is their first conviction in Hong Kong.

13.The guidelines for sentencing pickpocketing cases are clear.  A 12 to 15-month term of imprisonment after trial for a first-time offender is appropriate.  I refer myself to the authority of HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1.  The Court of Appeal says clearly that the sentencing court must also consider whether there are any mitigating or aggravating factors. 

14.What is relevant is that both defendants came here to commit offences to better their financial positions.  The offence took place in a crowed area, this means that the public were more at risk from pickpockets. Lastly, they acted in concert, not alone.  That same authority makes it clear that these are factors that should increase any starting point.

15.In the absence of any aggravating factors, as first-time offenders, I would normally take a 12-month starting point.  However I cannot ignore the aggravating factors that I have already identified.

16.After careful consideration of these factors, mitigation, the defendants’ personal backgrounds and the facts of the case, I would add a 3-month to that starting point of 12 months and take a 15-month starting point.  Both defendants are entitled to a discount of one-third for their pleas.  That is a discount of 5 months.  Accordingly, both defendants are sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment.