|
DCCC529/2010
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 529 OF 2010
--------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
CHEN Zhongyuan (D1) |
|
| |
LI Ximing(D2) |
|
--------------------
|
Before:
|
Deputy District Judge A Yim
|
|
Date:
|
7 October 2010 at 10:32 am
|
|
Present:
|
Ms. Ranee KHUBCHANDANI, PP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr KWAN Tong Lee, instructed by Messrs Adrain Yeung & Cheng, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D1.
Mr LAM Shun Chiu, instructed by Messrs David Y. Y. Fung & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for D2.
|
|
Offence:
|
(1), (2) & (4) Theft (盜竊罪)
(3) Attempted theft (企圗盜竊罪)
|
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
The defendants each faced one count of theft (Charge 1, 2)and jointly charged for 1 count of attempt theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200 (Charge 3)and 1 count of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210 (Charge 4)
The defendants pleaded guilty to Charge 3 and 4 and admitted the facts, they are convicted accordingly. The rest of the charges are leave on court file upon application of the prosecution.
Facts
D1 and D2 were holder of two-way permit and they arrived in Hong Kong on 6 April 2010.
In the afternoon of 11 April 2010, D1 and D2 were acting furtively inside Sham Shui Po MTR Station. At about 4:23pm, the defendants boarded a train towards Central direction. Inside the train, the defendants stood by either side of a male passenger. When the train was approaching Prince Edward Station, D2 nodded to D1 and moved his right hand towards the back of the cross shoulder bag carrying by the passenger and hold the pull tap of the bag’s zipper; at the same time, D1 moved slowing towards the back of the passenger and had eye contact with D2. Once the train door opened at Prince Edward Station, the male passenger alighted suddenly and the bag remained unzipped. (Charge 3)
The defendants also alighted at Prince Edward Station; they went to the concourse and back to the platform again. At around 4:33 D2 stood at the right hand side of PW1 who was carrying a shoulder bag and queuing on the platform. D1 stood closely behind PW1. When the train arrived at the platform, D2 suddenly moved in front of PW1 and blocked his way. At this moment, D1 unzipped the zipper of PW1’s shoulder bag and took a mobile phone from the bag. (Charge 4)
Under caution, both defendants denied any association with the other.
Pickpocketing is a serious and most irritating offence. Apart from the financial loss, the victims of pickpocketing often suffer serious inconvenience and frustration resulting from the loss of identity documents and other personal items. The offence, prevalent and easily committed by unscrupulous and must be deterred.
The normal starting point of this offence for a first offender ranges from 12 – 15 months. In the present case, although no tool was used, the offences were clearly planned when they were committed by two defendants together at MTR platform and inside train compartment, which in itself is an aggravating factor. Further, the defendants entered Hong Kong by two way permit on 6 April and committed the offences few days after their entry, this amount to another aggravating factor. Both defendants are equally culpable. I consider the appropriate starting point for each charge on both defendants to be 2 years.
D1 aged 40, divorced 2 years ago with a daughter studying in a teaching institution. He has a clear record in Hong Kong. He used to be a factory worker earning RMB1800 per month but he left the factory few months ago. He came to Hong Kong intended to look for a job. He worried about the living of the daughter without his support. The defendant has committed a serious offence, he should have anticipated upon conviction he is liable for a substantial term of imprisonment.
The defendant entitled to 1/3 discount for his plea, the defendant is mainlander who came to Hong Kong first intend to look for job then to steal, I do not consider there to be any mitigating factor called for further deduction. However, taking into account of the totality consideration, I order the sentence to run partly concurrent and partly consecutive, making a total of 22 months.
D2 aged 43, lives with his daughter aged 12 and his father in 70s who diagnosed with cancer. He has a clear record in Hong Kong. The defendant knew the condition of his family before he committed the crime. The defendant has committed a serious offence, he should have anticipated upon conviction he is liable for a substantial term of imprisonment. The defendant retired few years ago and lives on his retirement benefit, he came to Hong Kong intended to look for a job.
The defendant entitled to 1/3 discount for his plea, the defendant is mainlander who came to Hong Kong first intend to look for job then to steal, I do not consider there to be any mitigating factor called for further deduction. However, taking into account of the totality consideration, I order the sentence to run partly concurrent and partly consecutive, making a total of 22 months.
Order
D1
Charge 3 sentenced to 16 months imprisonment;
Charge 4 sentenced to 16 months imprisonment, 6 months consecutive with charge 3, making a total of 22 months.
D2
Charge 3 sentenced to 16 months imprisonment;
Charge 4 sentenced to 16 months imprisonment, 6 months consecutive with charge 3, making a total of 22 months.
| |
(A. Yim) |
| |
Deputy District Judge |
|