|
DCCC 142/2019
[2019] HKDC 1011
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 142 OF 2019
____________
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
PHAN NANG MINH |
|
| |
(also known as PUN NANG MING) |
|
____________
| Present: |
Ms Ivy Y.Y. Lau, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR.
Mr Ng Wai Wa of Eli K.K. Tsui & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant. |
________________________
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
________________________
1. The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance[1].
2. The theft is one of pickpocketing. In summary at around 19.35 hours on 25 December last year PC 15556 and team members were on plainclothes patrol in the vicinity of Nathan Road and Haiphong Road in Tsim Sha Tsui when they noticed the defendant paying attention to the handbags and pockets of pedestrians outside exit A1 of the Tsim Sha Tsui MTR station.
3. PC 15556 saw the defendant follow Miss Yau and at the same time pay attention to the pockets of her jacket. While Miss Yau was waiting on the crowded pavement to cross Nathan Road the defendant went up close behind Miss Yau and put his right hand into the left pocket of Miss Yau’s jacket and took out her mobile phone.
4. The defendant immediately turned round and left hastily at which point the police intercepted the defendant. PC 15556 seized the mobile phone which Miss Yau confirmed belonged to her, which was an Apple iPhone valued at $6,000.
5. Under caution the defendant said that he had no money to buy milk powder and therefore stole things to feed his son and daughter.
Mitigation
6. In passing sentence, I have carefully considered the oral and written submissions of Mr Ng including that the defendant has a young son aged two and a young daughter aged 8 months to take care of and that the defendant committed the offence because his social security had been stopped and he needed money to buy milk powder for his daughter[2].
Guidelines
7. In HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy the Court of Appeal confirmed the guideline sentence for pickpocketing after trial is 12 to 15 months for a first time offender, where there are no aggravating features[3].
8. I am satisfied the theft being of a mobile phone a starting point after trial of 15 months’ imprisonment is appropriate[4].
9. Aggravating features include where the offence is committed in a place in which the public is at particular risk, such as areas where the pedestrian traffic is heavy. This was early evening on Christmas day on a crowded pavement on Nathan Road. I increase the starting point by 3 months to 18 months’ imprisonment.
10. The fact an accused is a persistent offender is an aggravating feature. The defendant has 40 previous convictions with 29 for theft or attempted theft, with 14 specifically stated to be pickpocketing.
11. The defendant last appeared in court on 10 August 2017 when he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for pickpocketing, the same sentence he received in 2015, again for pickpocketing. These sentences clearly have had no deterrent effect on the defendant.
12. By reason of the defendant’s persistent offending I am satisfied the starting point is to be further increased by 12 months to 30 months’ imprisonment.
13. Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is convicted and sentenced to1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.
|
(D. J. DUFTON) |
|
DISTRICT JUDGE |
[1] Cap 210.
[2] See §§10-15 of the written mitigation submission.
[3] [2005] 2 HKLRD 1.
[4] See for example HKSAR v Liu Lin Feng CACC 206/2011.
|