HKSAR v. TANOLA OFELIA DORONILA

HCMA 771/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 771 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM SPCC 2954/2001)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. On 20 June of this year the appellant, who had been convicted after trial of an offence of attempted theft, was sentenced to a term of 15 months imprisonment. She appeals against that sentence upon the ground that it was too severe.

2. In her reasons for sentence the learned magistrate, inter alia, had this to say: -

" On 16th May, 2001, at about 1:13 P.M., [a police officer] was on patrol at the junction of Middle Road and Nathan Road, he saw the Defendant together with [a man about] one foot behind a female. They were looking at her bag.

.......... he went quickly to see what was going on. When he reached the back of Defendant and the [man], he saw the Defendant use her left hand to pull open the zipper of the bag from left to right. The [man] then inserted his hand into the bag and took out a black wallet. At the same time, he turned around and saw [the police officer] behind him, he retracted his hand immediately and dropped the wallet into the bag.

[The police officer] revealed his identity and grabbed hold of the Defendant and the [man] ...........

The Defendant denied [being] in the company of the [man. She said that] she was waiting for buses at the bus stop. She did not know why she was arrested.

[The Defendant is] aged 44. Married with seven children, aged between 12 to 26. She has two grandchildren. Her husband [is] aged 50 and is unemployed.

When passing sentence, I [took] into account the fact that the Defendant had a clear record and the mitigating factors put forward by the Defence Counsel.

I also considered that the place of [the]offence is a tourist spot and the Defendant was acting in concert with another person in committing the offence. The Defendant was convicted after trial. I adopted a starting point of 15 months as the appropriate sentence. R v Nguyen Thi Tham M.A. 747/1996 and R Pahm Dinh Ouyet M.A. 900/1996 refers."

3. Before me this morning the appellant has repeated what was said on her behalf to the magistrate. In addition she asks as an act of mercy that I reduce her sentence so that she can return to the Philippines in time for Christmas. She continues to deny the offence.

4. In my view the sentence imposed by the learned magistrate and the reasoning behind it cannot be faulted - and accordingly this appeal must be dismissed.