HKSAR v. DINH HUY THINH

DCCC527/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 527 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted theft.

2.  The offence was committed on 26 April outside No. 39 Mongkok Road, Mongkok, Kowloon.  On the day of the offence at about 6.45, the defendant was spotted by a police officer at the junction of Mongkok Road and Nathan Road in Mongkok.  The officer’s attention was drawn to the defendant because the defendant was looking at the rucksacks and handbags of passers‑by.  

3.  The victim in this case is a 14 year old girl, and together with a friend of hers she was walking along Mongkok Road.  The road was crowded.  The victim had a handbag which was hanging on her right shoulder.  The officer saw that the defendant was paying particular attention to this bag.  The defendant approached the victim from behind and he then used his right hand to lift the cover of her bag and put his right hand inside the bag. He then pulled his hand out of the bag and the officer noticed that there was nothing in it.  The defendant was intercepted and arrested by the officer, and the victim confirmed that she lost no property. 

4.  The defendant has an appalling record.  He has 28 previous convictions, 19 for theft, four for burglary and one for attempted theft.  Prison sentences seem to have no deterrent effect whatsoever on this defendant.  He was released from prison for his last offence of pick-pocketing two months before he committed the present offence.

5.  The defendant is 43 years of age and came to Hong Kong as a refugee in 1987.  I am told by his counsel in mitigation that at that time he was 18 years of age and optimistic that he would be able to get a good job and support his parents in Vietnam. 

6.  I am told that having been placed in the camp at Sham Shui Po, the living conditions were not good and the camp was divided into two groups, violence and theft commonplace.  It was in those circumstances that he was bullied and asked for protection from one of the groups and he was subsequently asked to commit illegal activities.  He was married in 1993 and divorced subsequently. There are two children of that marriage and they are currently aged 14 and 9. 

7.  I am told that his ex-wife is in custody at the moment having been arrested for selling cigarettes and there is nobody to look after the children.  I note from his record that the defendant could have had little involvement in the upbringing of his children with his constant sentences of imprisonment.

8.  I am told at the time of his arrest the defendant was working in a Vietnamese restaurant as a kitchen worker.  I am told that counsel representing the defendant has taken the trouble to confirm that he was employed there and that pictures have been provided showing the location.  I am told that the place where he was working was in the vicinity of where this offence was committed. 

9.  It is sad that the defendant, having found employment, still sees it necessary to commit this type of offence.  Given his record, it seems to me that he was extremely fortunate to find anybody that would employ him, and having found a legitimate source of income, within two months of coming out of prison he re-offends. 

10.  Society needs to be protected from people like the defendant.  Pick-pocketing is a major problem in Hong Kong, especially in crowded areas like Mongkok where this offence was committed.  The victim was a 14 year old girl. 

11.  In respect of this offence, I take a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment, which I enhance by 9 months because of the appalling record of the defendant.  That sentence will be increased by a further 3 months because the offence was committed in a crowded area.  The starting point therefore will be a sentence of 27 months, the only real mitigation in this case being the guilty plea entered by the defendant, so the sentence will be reduced by one-third to reflect that plea. 

12.  The defendant will go to prison for 18 months.