HKSAR v. PADILLA GERARDO GONZAGA AND OTHERS

DCCC155/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 155 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  D1, D3 to D5 each pleaded guilty to one count of theft. D4 further pleaded guilty to one count of breach of deportation order and one count of making a false representation to an Immigration Officer, while D5 further pleaded guilty to one count of breach of deportation order. D2 was convicted after trial of one count of theft.

2.  Facts revealed that on 23 November 2010, the five defendants came to Hong Kong from the Philippines then, on 25 November 2010, they went to the Hong Kong International Jewellery Show held at Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre.  At one of the booths, D1 stole a piece of diamond valued at HK$251,682.20.  D2 acted as a lookout, while D3 and D4 distracted the attention of the staff by making enquiries within.  D5 also admitted being a party of the group. 

3.  All the defendants were arrested by police subsequently when they attempted to leave Hong Kong. 

4.  Further investigation revealed that D4 was subject to a deportation order imposed on her on 7 January 2006.  D4 further admitted that she used a false passport to enter Hong Kong on this occasion.  D5 was also subject to a deportation order imposed on him on 28 October 1996.

5.  This is a serious case of theft involving international element and was well-planned.  I am satisfied that it falls within the meaning of the organised crime pursuant to section 2 of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance. 

6.  In sentencing D1, D3 to D5, I take into consideration their plea of guilty and the mitigation put forward by their counsel.  In D4 and D5’s case, I also take into consideration the totality principle.  As to the 2nd defendant, the court will also take into account the mitigation put forward by his counsel.  In this case, although different defendants played different roles in the theft, however the criminality is just equal.   

7.  For D1, the 1st charge, I take 3 years as a starting point.  Because of his plea, I reduce it to 2 years.  Because I found the 1st charge falls within the meaning of Organised Crime, I will therefore enhance his sentence by 50 per cent to one of 3 years.

8.  D3, the 1st charge, also a 3 year starting point. He pleaded guilty, therefore I reduce it to 2 years and I will enhance the sentence by 50 per cent to 3 years.

9.  D4, 1st charge, also 3 years as a starting point, pleaded guilty, therefore reduce it to 2 years and also enhance it by 50 per cent to 3 years.  For the 2nd charge and the 3rd charge, each 12 months as a starting point.  She pleaded guilty, therefore I reduce it to 8 months.  The sentence of the 2nd and the 3rd charge be run concurrently to each other, but consecutive to the 1st charge, therefore making a total sentence of 3 years and 8 months.

10.  D5, 1st charge, also 3 year starting point.  He pleaded guilty, therefore reduced to 2 years, and then an enhancement of 50 per cent to 3 years.  As to the 5th charge, I take 12 months as a starting point. He pleaded guilty, therefore reduce it to 8 months, 4 months of which to run concurrently with the sentence of the 1st charge, therefore making a total sentence of 3 years and 4 months.

11.  2nd defendant, 1st charge, a 3 year starting point and then I will enhance it by 50 per cent to 4½ years.