HKSAR v. JERICHO ALAMSYAH (also known as ARMANI GILBERTO, DWIKI TRISNA, RIVALDY SATRIA, SATRIA RIVALDAY, SATRIA RIVALDY, SATRIAPIVALDY, TRISNA DWIKI, WAHYUDI DUSANTO)

DCCC 1455/2024

[2025] HKDC 924

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1455 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Charge

1.  In these proceedings, the defendant is convicted of one count of breach of deportation order and one count of theft upon his plea and admission of facts.  

2.  On 31 July 2024, while the defendant was waiting to board a plane leaving Hong Kong, he stole a pair of sunglasses valued at HK$3,080 from a shop near the departure gate.

3.  His conduct was captured by the CCTV of the shop.  He was subsequently intercepted by the police and arrested for the offence of theft. 

4.  Further investigation revealed that he was subject of a deportation order dated 14 February 2005 and had been re-deported on 2 December 2013.  In other words, he had twice been in breach of the deportation order. 

5.  The record also revealed that he arrived at Hong Kong on 22 July 2024, and on the day of the theft, he was due to leave Hong Kong but was detained as a result of the theft.

Sentencing considerations

6.  The charge of theft, although it carries a hefty maximum sentence, does not have a clear sentencing guideline, since the facts of each cease differ and the sentence has to be fact-sensitive. 

7.  In the present case, it is a normal run-of-the-mill shop theft, and the court has a very wide discretion in sentencing. 

8.  In the present case, the defendant has accumulated a total of  7 dishonesty related convictions in Hong Kong with different levels of gravity, ranging from theft, conspiracy to steal and pickpocketing.

9.  I consider this particular fact an aggravating factor.  I note that his latest conviction was in 2012, when he was convicted of 3 counts of theft and sentenced to 12 months’ sentence for each count.

10.  The previous sentence orders, hefty as they were, were not sufficient to deter the defendant.  So I consider it proper that he should be sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment as a starting point. 

11.  As to the breach of deportation order charge , my attention has been drawn to the Court of Appeal case in HKSAR v Ta Dinh Son [2014] HKCA 17, CACC 348/2013, where having reviewed various cases, the Court of Appeal observed that for a first conviction, the starting point of 27 months is appropriate.

12.  In the present case, the aggravating factor is that the defendant had been the subject of three deportation orders, and he had similar conviction in 2008, 2010 and 2012.  He had been sentenced to imprisonment for all others ranging from 10 months to 16 months. 

13.  I consider his previous convictions an aggravating factor and would adopt 30 months as a starting point.

14.  Strictly speaking, the two offences are distinct offences, and should be ordered to run separately.  Having taken into consideration the Totality Principle and the circumstances of the case, I consider that it is appropriate to order 9 months of the 2^nd charge should run consecutive to that of the 1^st charge, making a total of 39 months.

Mitigation

15.  By the record provided by the prosecution and the submissions of the defence lawyer, I have been informed that the defendant was a taxi driver in Indonesia since 2022.  He was born in Indonesia to which he is a resident.  The reason why he came to Hong Kong, according to the defence counsel, was that he came to pick up something for his sister, who for some reason could not take them her contract as a domestic helper in Hong Kong after finishing.

16.  I have serious reservations on such an explanation, especially in view of the fact that he had been consistently in breach of the deputation orders imposed in the past.  I do not consider this as a mitigating factor or an aggravating factor. 

17.  The only relevant mitigation in this case is the fact he pleaded guilty.  In accordance with the directions by the Court of Appeal, I will reduce the total sentence of 39 months down to 26 months.