Case Document

100%

DCCC 830/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 830 OF 2014

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

	HKSAR
	v
	Le Ba Vuong (also known as Ie Ba Vuong)	1st Defendant
	Le Van Son (also known as Lee Man Shan, Lai Man Sang and Lai Man Shan)	2nd Defendant

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

Before:

HH Judge Yiu

Date:

3 November 2014 at 3.32 pm

Present:	Ms Janice Cheuk, Ag SPPof the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
	Ms Cheng Sin-yu, Eleanor, of MCA Lai & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1^st and 2^nd defendants

Offence:

Theft (盜竊罪)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.D1 and D2 pleaded guilty to a charge of theft which happened at about 5.40 pm on 19 August 2014 at the junction of Tai Nan Street and Pei Ho Street, Sham Shui Po.

2.The vicinity was crowded. The female victim was wearing a backpack. Police observed both defendants following her, then D2 unzipped the victim’s backpack, and D1 inserted his right hand and took out a mobile phone. Police intercepted while D1 was still holding the phone.

3.They were arrested at the scene, the victim confirmed the mobile phone was hers where a Visa card was also placed therein.

4.Both defendants are Vietnamese. D1 is aged 41, with 35 previous criminal convictions, of which 25 were theft, including 5 pickpocketing. He was last sentenced to DATC in August 2012. D2 is aged 51, with 43 previous convictions, of which 19 were theft, including 3 pickpocketing. He was last sentenced in July 2011 of 22 months’ imprisonment for trafficking in a dangerous drug.

5.Ms Cheng, in mitigation, submits that both defendants pleaded guilty, with full co‑operation with police, and there was no property lost. Both defendants committed the offence out of greed, and by their letters submitted, they said they were very sorry and remorseful.

6.D1 is married and has a son of 11 years old, his wife is now in Vietnam. D2 is also married and has 2 children. He suffers from lung cancer and could not work, and he hopes for a lenient sentence.

7.Pickpocketing is a serious offence. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1, laid down the sentencing guideline and was of the view that 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment after trial was appropriate for a first offender who committed the offence alone, and the sentence would be enhanced if aggravating factors exist.

8.In the present case, there were aggravating features, including that the offence was committed in a crowded place and in conjunction with another. No doubt both defendants are repeated offenders, committing the same offence for 3 to 5 times respectively and higher starting point will be adopted as in the case of HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830.

9.In HKSAR v Pham Bich Thuy CACC 217/2009, for 3 defendants targeting mainland tourists for pickpocketing, starting point of 39 months’ imprisonment was adopted, while in HKSAR v Chan Mei Yee Carmen CACC 447/2009, 30 months was deemed appropriate for more than one offender with many previous convictions.

10.Likewise, after consideration, I also adopt 30 months’ imprisonment as a starting point, and that be reduced to 20 months’ imprisonment upon guilty plea.

11.Therefore, for both defendants, they are each sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.