HKSAR v. MAC QUANG BINH (also known as MAC QUANG BINK)

DCCC 241/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 241 OF 2016

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

Introduction

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of theft, contrary to s 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2.  Shortly stated, it was a case of pick-pocketing.  At the material time, the defendant stole an iPhone from the left jacket pocket of a passenger in the crowded MTR Station in Mongkok.  However, what he did was observed by patrolling police officers. The defendant was soon arrested by the police officers after a brief struggle.

Antecedent & criminal records

3.  The defendant is now aged 51.  He came to Hong Kong from Vietnam in 1987 and was given a Hong Kong Identity Card in 2000.  By way of background, his mother, now 78, is living in Vietnam.  The defendant has not yet married but has a girl friend in Hong Kong whom he has met about 6 months ago.

4.  The defendant has a string of conviction records in Hong Kong between November 1989 and February 2015, arising from 28 court appearances involving a total of 35 convictions, out of those 26 are dishonesty related including theft, attempted theft, robbery and handling stolen goods.  In particular, he has 8 previous of pick-pocketing. 

Mitigation

5.  Ms Cheng, who mitigates on behalf of the defendant, invites the court to pass a lenient sentence in view of the fact that the defendant had acted singly and that he had made full admissions to the police.  Ms Cheng also stresses that the defendant is truly remorseful and he pleads guilty in a timely fashion.

Sentence

6.  According to the tariff laid down by HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1, the starting point for pick-pocketing is 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment after trial for a first time offender.  Aggravating factors include the fact that the offence was committed in a crowded area and that the defendant is a repeated offender.

7.  In the present case, I take into account that the defendant had acted singly and that the offence did not appear to have been committed in a professional manner.  I take 12 months as the starting point, on top of which I add 3 months for the fact that the offence took place in a busy and crowded MTR station.  For the defendant’s appalling record I add another 6 months.  Therefore, the sentence before any reduction for mitigation is one of 21 months’ imprisonment. 

8.  As far as mitigation is concerned, I give the defendant the customary one-third discount for his plea, that discount also covers his admission to the police and his remorse: see Secretary for Justice v Lee Chun Ho, Jeef [2009] 6 HKC 471; and Secretary for Justice v Tsang Ho Pong [2009] 6 HKC 389.  Apart from his plea, I can see nothing which can further reduce his sentence. 

9.  Therefore, the defendant is sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment.