HKSAR v. WONG KWAI SHING

DCCC 1086/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1086 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to a single offence of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. You admitted the brief facts and I convicted you.

2.  What occurred is this.  At about 3.50 pm on 27 September last, PW2, a police officer, saw you acting furtively at Canton Street and Fife Street, Mong Kok.  She noted that you kept staring at bags carried by passers-by, so she followed you and then radioed for assistance.

3.  At a fruit stall outside 7-13 Argyle Street, she saw you walk close to the left of a 73-year-old man, who was PW1.  You reached out and took $20 from PW1’s pocket.  She grabbed your right hand and you discarded the note on the floor.

4.  PW3, another police officer, arrived and arrested you.  Under caution, you admitted stealing the money as you had no money for a meal and out of greed.

5.  You admitted to 34 previous convictions on 29 occasions; 20 related to theft and many were for pick-pocketing.

6.  On your behalf Mr Lee entered mitigation.  He told me that you are 54 years of age, single and in receipt of CSSA.  The offence was committed at the end of the month whilst your CSSA is paid at the beginning.  While he also accepted you had a history of theft including theft by pick-pocketing, he asked me to note the last such offence was 2006.  He accepted the offence was committed on a crowded street but pointed to the fact that you acted alone and used no instruments to assist you.  He submitted that the main point of mitigation was the fact that you took but a single note rather than a wallet or a purse which would have contained ID cards, bank cards and possibly a driving licence.

7.  On your behalf, he accepted that this was an offence of pick-pocketing but submitted it would be towards the lower end of the scale given the circumstances, although he seemed to recognise that there would be a higher starting point because of your appalling record.

8.  I turn now to the sentence.

9.  Defendant, you have an appalling criminal record, especially one relating to dishonesty.  You are demonstrably a clear recidivist.  In the nature of the offence itself, I do agree that there is some mitigation in the fact that you took only a $20 note and did not take a wallet or a purse with the problems that would have caused.  I am also prepared to accept that the note itself was hanging from the pocket of PW1.  It is also to your credit that upon arrest you made full and frank confessions, though it is difficult to see how you could have denied it having being caught red-handed, and I also accept that you acted alone and used no instrument to assist you. 

10.  Therefore, in all the circumstances, I take a starting point of 21 months, reduced to 14 months for your plea of guilty.  You will go to prison for 14 months.