HKSAR v. Tang Yiu Wing

DCCC 409/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 409 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of pickpocketing.

2.On 15 April 2014 at around 6.50 pm, police officers, whilst on anti-pickpocket patrol on Canton Road which was crowded, spotted the defendant standing closely behind Tong Lai-kuan, the victim, a 69-year-old woman, and another woman.  The defendant, using a jacket as a cover-up, used his right hand to steal a mobile phone from the handbag of the victim.  The defendant was intercepted by the police officers. 

3.Upon search, a mobile phone was found in the defendant’s shoulder bag.  The victim confirmed it was hers.  The mobile phone was worth about $5,000. 

4.Under caution, the defendant admitted that he stole the phone for self-use out of greed. 

5.The defendant is aged 54.  He has 24 criminal conviction records involving 15 charges for theft or attempted theft.  The criminal record reveals clearly that at least four convictions were for pickpocket.

6.In mitigation, I am told that the defendant has two grown-up daughters from his previous marriage.  His current wife and a 16-year-old daughter are living in the mainland.  The defendant has a 81-year-old father who is wheelchair-bound, also living in the mainland.  Here in Hong Kong the defendant has a cousin who is now in the court in support of the defendant.  The cousin describes the defendant as a filial son.

7.Mitigation letters written by the defendant and his wife are submitted to the court.

8.Miss Chung, counsel for the defendant, refers me to HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1 and HKSAR v Wong Kang Sun [2014] 1 HKLRD 622.  It is submitted that in the latter case, given the unsophisticated manner of the commission of the offence, the Court of Appeal found 15 months as a starting point too severe in that case.

9.It is further submitted that while 9 months’ enhancement was appropriate for the appellant in Wong’s case, it would be too severe for the defendant in the present case who has less criminal convictions than the appellant in Wong’s case.  Miss Chung also tells the court that she was the counsel for the defendant at his last conviction in July 2012.  She submits to the court the Reasons for Sentence for the defendant’s last conviction in the District Court. 

10.While the criminal conviction record only reveals clearly of four pickpocket cases, the Reasons for Sentence submitted by Miss Chung, DCCC457/2012, discloses that that was also an attempted pickpocket case. 

11.Pickpocketing is a serious and most irritating offence.  Apart from the financial loss, it often results in significant inconvenience to the victims.  The Court of Appeal in Ngo Van Huy laid down the guidelines, namely 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment after trial for a first offender with upward adjustment for aggravating features including: (1) the offence was committed in a crowded public place; and (2) the defendant was a repeat or persistent offender. 

12.I accept that the present case was a simple and unsophisticated pickpocket case committed by the defendant alone.  However, it must not be ignored that the victim in the present case was a 69-year-old woman.  The stolen mobile phone was worth about $5,000. 

13.In the circumstances of the case I find 15 months’ imprisonment an appropriate initial starting point.  It is not disputed that the offence was committed in a crowded public place.  I would add 3 months to the starting point. 

14.The defendant has 15 records for theft or attempted theft, five of which at the least were pickpocket cases.  He was last convicted of attempted pickpocket in July 2012 and was only released in January 2013.  He did not treasure the chance given to him for the lenient sentence he received in July 2012 and committed the same offence in April this year.

15.The defendant might not have the same number of criminal conviction as the defendant in the two cases cited by Miss Chung.  However, in my view, the defendant’s criminal record is appalling.  He is properly regarded as a persistent offender.  I will add 9 months to the initial starting point.  The resulting starting point would be 27 months’ imprisonment.

16.There is nothing in the mitigation for remorse which the defendant expressed superficially in the mitigation letters and his promise to his wife of turning a new leaf.  The family circumstances and that the defendant’s father is unwell in the mainland are not mitigation factors. If the defendant is concerned about the welfare of his father and his family, he should avoid getting involved in this sort of offence in the first place. 

17.Apart from the plea of guilty, there is no effective mitigating factor to justify any reduction of the sentence.  For the guilty plea, the defendant will be given the full one-third discount.  He is therefore sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.