HKSAR v. HAN WEI AND OTHERS

DCCC456/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Three defendants in this case pleaded guilty before me to one count of theft which is a case of pick-pocketing.

2.  On the day of the offence the three defendants were seen by police officers following a woman in Tsim Sha Tsui area near the Star Ferry.  When the woman stopped by a newspaper store at the Star Ferry pier buying a bottle of water for herself, D3 pointed at the handbag carried by the woman and nodded to the other two defendants.

3.  As the woman unzipped her handbag, D3 moved forward to the right hand-side of the woman and gave hand signal to the other two defendants.  As a result, D1 and D2 came behind the woman D1 put his hand into the woman’s handbag and took her mobile phone from it.  D1 then passed the stolen mobile phone to D2 who put the same into his left trousers pocket and then left the scene and went to the pier. 

4.  Later, they were stopped by the police officers and were escort back to the pier.  D2 suddenly took out the stolen mobile phone and threw it into the sea.  D1, D3 have a clear record, D2 had one previous but not similar.  All defendants are Mainlanders.  They committed the present offence only a few days after they came to Hong Kong.

5.  The court was told that the 1st defendant had a job in Shenzhen as an electronic worker, he lives with his girlfriend and they have a son. 

6.  Counsel for D1 said that, the offence was committed out of momentary greed.  D1 was in fact on his way to Thailand staying for brief period in Hong Kong, he was just to make easy money here.  As far as D2 is concern, he also has a job in Shenzhen working in a boutique, lives with his girlfriend there.

7.  Counsel for D2 urged the court not to take into account his previous conviction, which was some 15 years ago. And he pleaded guilty at the very first opportunity that was indicative of his remorse. Counsel for 2nd defendant also submitted that this is not a particular sophisticated pick pocketing. It is a standard straightforward one, albeit committed by a numbers of people; they formed no part of an organised pick-pocketing racket.

8.  D3 is the owner of a tack-shop in China.  His left hand suffered certain disability as a result of accident.  Counsel for D3 submitted that all three of them did not plan the action in advance. Three of them met in Hong Kong and the decision to steal was spontaneous and it was out of greed.  All three defendants are willing to pay compensation to the victim in the case.  The cost of the telephone in question is $2,000. 

9.  There are sentencing guidelines for this type of offence: for an individual offender of clear record is one of 12 to 15 months.  There maybe aggravating features in the case, such as the place where the offence committed is a crowded one, whether or not the offender is a repeat offender, whether or not they are acting in concert. 

10.  In the case of Ngo Van Huy, CACC107/2004, the Court of Appeal has summarized the approach to sentencing in pick-pocketing offence. 

11.  In that case, the Court of Appeal has mentioned one other case, in which Justice Patrick Chan’s comment has been cited with approval. 

Mr Justice Patrick Chan has this to say:

“We take this opportunity to indicate that in our view, because of their seriousness, organised crimes of this nature including group pocketing, even without international ramifications, might in future properly attract a starting point of at least 2½ years’ imprisonment”.

12.  Defence counsel said that the present case was not sophisticated pick-pocketing nor was it part of an organised pick-pocketing racket. 

13.  My view is these defendants are acting together in a group pocketing as the one described by Justice Patrick Chan.  As far as the present case is concern.  I am of the view that the guideline of at least 2½ years’ imprisonment applies.  As far as mitigation is concern, the fact that D1 and D3 had a clear record- that factor carries little weight, simply because you have only had a very brief period in Hong Kong.  For each of you, apart from your guilty plea I do not see any other mitigating factor of substance.           

14.  Taking into account all the mitigation put forward, I take 30 months as starting point for each of you and reduced to 20 months to reflect your guilty plea. And I see nothing further to reduce the sentence, therefore each of you are sentenced to a term of 20 months.

15.  The victim in the case lost her telephone, which cost about $2,000.  I ordered each of you to pay compensation to the victim in the sum of $666; the money is to be taken from your personal property.