HKSAR v. NGUYEN MANH CUONG

DCCC1308/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.1308 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

The defendant was charged for three counts of Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance Cap 210 and two counts of Attempted theft, contrary to section 9 of the theft Ordinance, Cap.210 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200.

The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges and admitted the facts, he is convicted accordingly.

Facts

PW1 and friends visited the Ocean Park in the evening on 23 October 2010 for the “Halloween Bash Party”. At around 12:00 midnight on 24 October, when PW1’s party was leaving the Ocean Park at the Tai Shue Wan Exit, the defendant first tampered PW1’s waist bag attempted to steal (Charge 5) and then moved to PW2 using his hand to reach for the left rear side of her attempted to steal (Charge 4). PW1 noticed the act of the defendant and shouted at him, the defendant then proceeded towards the exit quickly.

At this juncture, PW3 who had just discovered his mobile phone value at about $4,000 missing from his waist bag saw the defendant holding his phone (Charge 3).

Police was informed and the defendant was arrested at scene. Upon searching the defendant’s rucksack, a digital camera valued at about $2300 reported lost by PW4 was found(Charge 2), and an i-Pod nano valued at about $1300 reported lost by PW5 was found (Charge 1). Both items were reported lost earlier on 23 October.

Pick-pocketing is prevalent offence, the normal starting point for first offender is 12 – 15 months. In the present case, the offences were committed by the defendant inside an amusement park holding a special event where crowds are expected and visitors are generally less alert to their personal properties, I consider these to be aggravating factors. I consider the appropriate starting point for each charge to be 18 months.

Mitigation

The defendant aged 37 with 20 convictions, with 1 burglary, 11 related to theft, and 4 attempted theft, where a number of the theft and attempted theft is pickpocketing. The defendant was last released from prison on 11 September 2010 after serving 2 month sentence for his last shop theft conviction.

The defence submitted that the reason for the commission of the present offence is that upon return from the prison, the defendant found his wife has left home leaving behind $500 and three children, he felt helpless as he has no job and money. Yet I noted the three children are receiving public assistance, the defendant not having a job at that time should have been able to look after the children.

The children are now temporarily looked after by his sister-in-law, though the defence submitted that the wife would return in the middle of this month, in order to ensure the welfare of the children, I would refer them to the social welfare department for attention.

It is obvious that the sentences the defendant had previously received had not deterred him. Because of his appalling record, I increase the starting point by 6 to 24 months. The defendant is entitled to 1/3 discount for his plea, I do not consider there to be any mitigating factors that call for further deduction. However, taking into account of the totality principal, I would order the sentence to run partly concurrent.

Order