HKSAR v. HOANG THI MUOI

DCCC237/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 237 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant, Miss Hoang Thi Muoi, pleads guilty to one count of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. The particulars of the offence are that the defendant on 2 February 2010 at Hing Mee Zip Fastener Factory Limited, No. 86, Nam Cheong Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon in Hong Kong, stole one mobile phone, the property belonging to Liu Suet-lin.

Facts Admitted

2.  On 2 February 2010 at about 1235 hours, the victim, Miss Liu Suet-lin, while shopping inside the Hing Mee Zip Fastener Factory Limited at 86 Nam Cheong Street, Sham Shui Po, discovered some movement in the right pocket of her jacket and found that the defendant had taken her mobile phone which was worth $1,800. She chased after the defendant and stopped her but the defendant said that the mobile phone belonged to her. The victim found the mobile phone inside the left pocket of the defendant’s jacket. A report was made to the police.

3.  On being arrested and cautioned, the defendant admitted to have stolen the phone intending to sell it for food, and asked for a chance.

Criminal record

4.  The defendant has 21 previous convictions, of which one was handling stolen goods and seven were thefts or attempted thefts, including four pickpocketing offences. The last conviction was an offence of attempted theft by way of pickpocket, for which the defendant was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment on 16 February 2009.

Mitigation

5.  The defendant is aged 37, born in Vietnam. She came to Hong Kong in 1989 and married a Hong Kong citizen in 1991. She divorced her husband in 2003 and cohabited with another Hong Kong man, giving birth to three children aged 12, 11 and 4 respectively. The youngest one is now living in Po Leung Kuk and the elder two are under the care of their natural father.

6.  The solicitor representing the defendant tells the court that shortly before the offence the defendant was informed that her mother in Vietnam suffered from lung cancer. She was asked to remit money back to Vietnam so as to send her mother to hospital. The defendant was at that time on CSSA and had no money to send to Vietnam. Out of momentary greed, she committed the present offence.

7.  The solicitor asks the court to impose a short imprisonment term on the defendant so that she can come out to take care of her children as soon as possible.

Sentence

8.  This is a typical case of stealing mobile phone by way of pickpocketing. Although the case did not involve a high degree of sophistication, the victim was not aware of the theft until her mobile phone had been taken away from her, reflecting in a degree of professionalism on the part of the defendant. The offence took place during broad daylight in a shop, adding gravity to the offence.

9.  The defendant has an appalling criminal record. From 2004 to 2009 she committed four cases of pickpocketing. Although she was imprisoned for 10 to 16 months’ for these offences, she fails to mend herself and has continued to break the law. No doubt she is a persistent offender falling within the type envisaged by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy CACC107/2004.

10.  Having considered the whole circumstances of the case, the court adopts a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment.

11.  Although the defendant committed the offence for monetary gain so that she could get money to treat her mother, this can never constitute a valid ground for mitigation. The only ground for mitigation of the defendant is her plea of guilty.

12.  Giving her credit for that, the court sentences her to 20 months’ imprisonment.