HKSAR v. Vy Van Kien

DCCC 213/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 213 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of pickpocketing.

2.At around 2 pm on 24 January 2015, a 27-year-old female, the victim, was walking with her husband along Tai Ho Road, Tsuen Wan. She was wearing a coat with her mobile phone, an iPhone 6 worth about $7,000, placed inside the right pocket of her coat.  When she stopped at the pedestrian crossing, she felt someone from behind reaching her mobile phone inside her pocket.  She immediately held the hand of the person behind her, the defendant, and shouted for help.  Her husband stopped the defendant from leaving the scene.  Meanwhile, an off-duty police officer passed by and arrested the defendant. 

3.Under caution, the defendant admitted the offence. 

4.The defendant is aged 47.  He has 27 previous convictions.  Apart from five of them, all were related to theft or attempted theft.  He was last released from prison on 31 December 2013. 

5.Mr Wong, solicitor for the defendant, informed the court that the defendant came to Hong Kong from Vietnam at the age of 13 with his family.  Except the defendant and his younger brother, their family members have all migrated to overseas.  The defendant is a divorced person living with his younger brother in Hong Kong.  He has a son aged 16, living with his mother and stepfather in the mainland.  The defendant’s son visits the defendant in Hong Kong once a month. 

6.As the defendant received no salary from his employer since April 2014, he had financial difficulties and hence committed the present offence. 

7.In mitigation, Mr Wong submits that the defendant committed the offence by himself out of greed.  He correctly points out that no tools or weapons were used and the victim suffered no loss.  The location of the offence is not a crowded place as Mong Kok and Tsim Sha Tsui and is not a tourist area.

8.Mr Wong fairly accepts that the defendant’s previous convictions would enhance the sentence.

9.The prosecution submits one well-known case HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1, and another case HKSAR v Tsui Chiu Kwai CACC 452/2011.  

10.Pickpocketing is a serious and most irritating offence.  Apart from the financial loss, it often results in significant inconvenience to the victim.  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: one, the offence was committed in a crowded public place; and two, the defendant was a repeat or persistent offender.

11.The offence took place at a pedestrian crossing and the defendant aimed at a mobile phone which is worth $7,000.  The appropriate starting point should be 15 months’ imprisonment. 

12.I will not treat the location of the offence an aggravating feature in the case. 

13.However, the defendant has an appalling criminal record for theft.  Based on his criminal record for pickpocket, he is to be treated as a professional and persistent pickpocket.  To achieve a deterrent effect on him, in order to protect the interests of the public, I enhance the starting point by 9 months.  The starting point after enhancement for aggravating feature would become 24 months’ imprisonment. 

14.I cannot see any mitigating factor in this case except the defendant’s plea of guilty for which he would get a one-third reduction of sentence. 

15.The defendant is therefore sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.