HKSAR v.DU QIANG AND OTHERS

DCCC730/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 730 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The three defendants entered a plea of guilty to one charge of ‘Theft’, laid against them under section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. The facts to which they agree are as follows.

Facts

2.  On 13 June 2011, the defendants entered Hong Kong as tourists from the Mainland with permission to stay for seven days.  The following evening, a team of police officers spotted them looking furtively at the bags of passers-by at the junction of two busy streets in Mongkok.  They were seen entering a Bossini shop, where the first and second defendants purchased new clothes and got changed.  Afterwards, they walked along the street. 

3.  A man got out of a taxi and put his wallet into his shoulder bag and zipped it.  The police officers saw the second defendant point at the man and talk with the first and third defendants, who nodded.  The three of them then followed the man. 

4.  The first defendant positioned himself behind him, while the second and third defendants sandwiched him, left and right.  The first defendant unzipped the man’s shoulder bag and took his wallet.  A police officer rushed forward and grabbed the first defendant’s hand, and the man’s wallet fell inside the shoulder bag.

Conviction

5.  The court finds the defendants guilty as charged.  They have had hitherto a clear record. 

Mitigation

6.  In the mitigation, the defence puts forward the following matters for the court’s consideration.

(1) Discount

7.  The first defendant is now 22 years of age, and has completed Junior Secondary education.  He works as a hair-dresser on the Mainland and lives with his parents’ family, although he himself is married with a 20-year-old beautician.

8.  The second defendant is 31 years old.  He is single and has worked as an electricity fee collector, and is currently a part-time farmer.

9.  Solicitor for the first and second defendants urges the court to give the defendants the full discount on account of their clear record and expression of remorse in their guilty pleas.

10.  The third defendant has written a clemency letter to the court, in which he expressed remorse and explained he committed the offence because he owed his relative a debt.

11.  Counsel for the third defendant likewise submits that full discount should be given to the third defendant to reflect his clear record and guilty plea.

(2) Bona fide tourists

12.  Solicitor for the first and second defendants submits that her clients had come to Hong Kong with the honest intention to make purchases.  Unfortunately, the first defendant had lost the gifts and computer he bought on the day of their arrival, and hence, the commission of the theft.  It is submitted that they should not be considered as having a pre-meditated intention to do crimes in Hong Kong.

(3) Authorities

13.  The defence urges the court to follow the guideline pronounced in the case of HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy, CACC107/2004, a case that concerns an offence of pickpocket committed by a sole defendant.

14.  In addition, counsel for the third defendant refers the court to the cases of HKSAR v Zhan Hua and Others, DCCC420/2011, and HKSAR v Wong King-pan and Another, DCCC665/2011.  The court notes at once that in neither of the two cases was the sentencing court referred to the various Court of Appeal decisions which provided a sentence guideline for cases involving multiple offenders.

Discussion

15.  Pickpocket is a serious offence that calls for a stiff sentence.  It causes loss and inconvenience to the victim, and its prevalence can bring about a bad reputation for Hong Kong. 

16.  In the instant case, the three defendants committed the offence the day after they arrived in Hong Kong as tourists. Hong Kong is famous for its tourism industry and welcomes visitors from all over the world.  The court has a duty to protect Hong Kong from criminals who come here in the guise of tourists with a pre-meditated intention to commit crimes exhibiting a substantial degree of organisation. 

17.  The mode in which the defendants committed this offence shows that they are practised thieves, falling within this category. 

18.  The first and second defendants’ submission that they entered Hong Kong as bona fide tourists is rejected. The practised mode of the commission of the offence militates heavily against that submission. 

19.  In a series of cases, the Court of Appeal has approved and adopted a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment for offences of pickpocket committed by two or more persons (R v Saldana Alca Jose and Anor, CACC655/1996; HKSAR v Liao Mei and Ors [2004] HKLRD (Year Book) 387; HKSAR v Zhang Li Ping and Another, CACC403/2004; HKSAR v Jiang Siyuan, CACC160/2005, and HKSAR v Tan Hong Sheng, CACC238/2005).  There is no justification to depart from this sentence guideline. 

Conclusion

20.  In all the circumstances, the court is of the view that a starting point of 30 months should be adopted, which is reduced on account of the defendants’ clear record and guilty pleas, to one of 20 months’ imprisonment. Nothing in the defendants’ personal and family circumstances would warrant any further reduction.

Order

21.  The defendants are each sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 20 months.