HKSAR v. Le Van-hoa
|
DCCC 291/2014 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 291 OF 2014 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of pickpocketing. 2.The circumstances are that on 24 February this year at about 9.30 am officers were on anti-pickpocket patrol in the Sham Shui Po area of Kowloon when they spotted the defendant acting suspiciously. They noticed that in particular he was paying attention to the handbags carried by female passers-by. 3.At 9.35 whilst on Pei Ho Street he was observed paying particular attention to a lady who is referred to as PW1 in these proceedings. The officers noticed that the right pocket of her upper garment was unzipped. The area was crowded at that time. The defendant was seen to use his left hand to take the mobile phone from the right pocket and immediately put the phone into the left pocket of his own jacket. Apparently the victim did not realize what had happened. 4.The defendant then left and was followed by the police officers. He was later intercepted and the stolen property recovered from him. He admitted the commission of the offence and said he committed it because he had no money. 5.The defendant has an appalling record. He has 52 previous convictions and 38 court appearances. As far as offences of dishonesty are concerned, 19 were for theft, six involving pickpocketing, one of attempted theft, one robbery, one burglary, and his numerous appearances since year 2000 have all been for theft and pickpocketing. His last court appearance was on 5 February 2013 when he was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment for pickpocketing. I understand that he was released from that sentence on 11 January 2014, six weeks before the commission of the current offence. 6.The defendant is aged 47. He is a divorcee, was educated in Vietnam to primary level. He came to Hong Kong in 1981 when he was 15 years of age and he was unemployed at the time of his arrest. 7.In mitigation I was told that after being released from prison, he made an application for public assistance, but that application had not been approved by the time he committed this offence and he was desperately in need of funds. 8.I am told that he is no longer a drug addict. 9.The main features of mitigation are that he admitted the offence immediately when he was detained by the police and has pleaded guilty today. 10.At the time of the offence he was acting alone and there is no evidence that this was part of any organised syndicate. 11.The aggravating features of the offence of pickpocketing are that they were committed in a crowded place and that the defendant has numerous previous convictions of a similar kind. 12.On the last occasion he appeared before the court he was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment. Shortly after being released, he commits an identical offence. Clearly, it would be wrong in principle to impose any lesser sentence on the defendant. The question really is whether I impose a greater sentence. 13.Having considered all the circumstances, I propose to take a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment and reduce that by one-third to reflect the defendant’s guilty plea. The defendant will go to prison for 20 months.
|