Case Document

100%

DCCC 681/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 681 OF 2014

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

	HKSAR
	v
	Aldefi Nurazija	(A1) (A2)

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

Before:

HH Judge Casewell

Date:

9 January 2015 at 4.04 pm

Present:	Ms Bina Sujanani, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
	Mr Derek Charles Middleton, of Massie & Clement, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st defendant
	Mr Simon Henry Cleves, of Krishnan & Tsang, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd defendant

Offence:

Attempted theft (企圖盜竊罪)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendants have been convicted of a joint act of attempted theft.

2.The facts are set out in the Admitted Facts and the judgment just given, so I do not propose to rehearse them, but it was an attempt to steal from a knapsack of a gentleman on the escalator at World Wide House in Central.

3.Both defendants are from Indonesia, and it would appear from my findings and from the evidence that they acted in concert to commit the theft.

4.Both of them are of clear record. The 1st defendant is a 40‑year‑old man. He has worked as a hawker in Indonesia and has a son and a daughter. He has an unfortunate medical history. I refer to a medical report of 24 November 2014, showing him having suffered from pulmonary tuberculosis, hepatitis C and acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

5.As far as the 2nd defendant is concerned, she is aged 36. She well educated, university level education, is a businesswoman, and has and supports a 13-year-old son, and supports also the child of her younger sister.

6.As far as the offence is concerned, there is a clear guideline sentencing for offences of pickpocketing, which is what this is, and I bear in mind the authority of Ngo Van Huy CACC 107/2004, which sets out a number of factors that can be taken into consideration when determining sentence.

7.The starting point for sentence refers to clear record and can range between 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment, depending on a number of factors. There are then other factors which can aggravate and lead to an increase in sentence from that, and the factors that may be of relevance here are the fact that people have acted in concert and they have chosen a high-risk area such as a crowded area in which to commit the offence.

8.I believe this falls into one of those areas, being an area where pedestrian traffic could be expected to be heavy. Considering the initial starting point, before any aggravating factors are to be taken into account, I will adopt the same starting point for both defendants. I take into account the nature of the offence. Although this is an attempt to steal money from a knapsack, it did not actually get very far and was detected very early; and I also have to consider the background of both defendants.

9.There is mitigation both in the 1st defendant’s illness and in the 2nd defendant’s family situation, so what I shall take as the initial starting point before any aggravating factors are considered is a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment for both of them.

10.The further aggravating factors are they acted in concert and the place where they chose to commit the offence. Those would each lead to a further 3 months’ additional sentence, which is a total of an additional 6 months in sentence additional to the original starting point. That means the starting point I will adopt for both defendants is one of 18 months’ imprisonment.

11.Considering the 1st defendant, he of course has pleaded guilty and is entitled to the benefit of a one‑third discount from that sentence. His sentence will be one of 12 months’ imprisonment.

12.The 2nd defendant pleaded not guilty and is not entitled to such discount. Her sentence will be one of 18 months’ imprisonment.