HKSAR v. LI SHIJUN AND ANOTHER

DCCC 1207/2024

[2025] HKDC 212

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1207 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  In this case the two defendants, Li Shijun (“D1”)  and Li Qimou (“D2”)  have been convicted of one count of Theft upon their pleas and admission of the facts.

2.  Both defendants are residents of the mainland from the same village.  They came to Hong Kong on 10 June at the same time.

3.  The incident occurred four days after their arrival at 4 pm on 14 June 2024, they were seen to be inside the concourse of Lai Chi Kok MTR station acting furtively by looking at the passers-by.  Their behaviour attracted the attention of the police officers patrolling in the vicinity.

4.  About 30 minutes later, they left the MTR station and went to the hawker stalls in Wing Lung Street near Shun Ning Road in Cheung Sha Wan.  They crowded around an elderly gentleman (“the victim”).  D1 stood closely behind that victim, while D2 was standing on the victim’s left.  D2 was keeping a lookout.  D1 then took out from his rucksack a collapsible umbrella and held it in his right hand.  He then put his left hand into the victim’s sling bag on the shoulder, unzipped the same, took out the wallet belonging to the victim and hid it inside the umbrella.  They then left together.

5.  While they were both crossing Shun Ning Street, D1 was seen putting the umbrella back in his backpack before parting his way with D2.

6.  D1 was then intercepted by the police officers.  They found the wallet inside the umbrella.  D2 was stopped while he was crossing Un Chau Street near Fuk Wing Street.

7.  The victim’s wallet contained his Hong Kong ID card, a senior citizen card, an Octopus card, $5,870 in cash and other personal items.

Sentencing

8.  This is a case what is commonly referred to as pickpocketing, a serious offence and should be condemned severely.

9.  In this case, the amount stolen was quite substantial.  In addition, the loss of personal documents would certainly bring significant inconvenience to their owner, it can be seen as a direct invasion of the person and his privacy, therefore should attract a heavy penalty.

10.  In addition, there are aggravating factors:-

(i)  the two defendants were acting in concert. Although it was D1 who did a substantial part of the deed, D2 was clearly acting as a lookout.

(ii)  D1 had brought a prop, namely a collapsible umbrella to obscene the act of theft from the public and the victim.

(iii)  the offence was committed in Shun Ning Road where there were hawker stores. Although there is no evidence from the prosecution about the conditions of that street commercial, I can take judicial notice that the area was a residential area, with a lot of people carrying out their daily business and shopping on the hawker stalls there.

(iv)  Four days after they came to Hong Kong they committed the present offence. Although counsel for D1 suggested that it was not sufficient to infer that they came here especially to commit offences, from the fact they were from the same place in China, came to Hong Kong at the same time, and did not even live in a hotel for tour days, and together with the way the offence was committed, left me with no doubt that they came to Hong Kong in order to steal.

11.  In the case of HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal has set out the reasons why these offences are considered serious, the gist of which had been summarised above.  In another Court of Appeal case R v Saldana, referring to the judgment where the learned judge stated that:

“...because of the seriousness of organised crimes of this nature, even without international ramification, a starting point of at least 2½ years was expected.”

12.  I also took into account of the previous decisions also made by my learned brothers in the District Court, although they are not binding on me, they were of value as references.

13.  Having considered all the evidence, especially in view of the aggravating factors enlisted above, I come to the conclusion that the proper starting point would be 33 months.

Mitigations

14.  Both defendants were of clear record.  They were aged respectively 60 and 55.  D1 was unemployed, D2 a farmer.  These factors are not valid mitigations.  The only relevant consideration is that they both pleaded guilty.  In accordance with the Court of Appeal’s direction, I would reduce the sentence down to 22 months.

15.  As I have indicated, I found them acting in concert.  There is no difference in their culpability.  So although in this case D1 seemed to be the more active one, the role of D2 was just as important.

16.  I have considered other parts of their mitigations.  I do not find any other reasons which justified the exercise of further leniency on their part.  So both defendants are sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment.