HONG SEUNGPYO v. HKSAR

HCMA 791/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 791 OF 2012

(ON APPEAL FROM TWCC 2925 OF 2012)

____________________

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1.  The Appellant had pleaded guilty to one charge of “Theft” in the Magistrates’ Courts and was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. He now appeals against the sentence.

2.  The facts of the case basically are that at the International Airport in Hong Kong, the victim, Ms Yu and her husband were waiting for the arrival of her friend on the day of offence.  The Appellant approached the victim and asked to see the handbag of the victim saying he wanted to see what the brand name was.  The victim wishing to be rid of the Appellant then handed her handbag to her husband to hold in order for the Appellant to take a look.  Suddenly the Appellant snatched the handbag and ran away and the victim’s husband gave chase and managed to apprehend the Appellant.  The Appellant was arrested.  The Appellant said he had no money for food and had lost all of his property and travel documents, and that he had failed to locate the South Korean consulate.

3.  The Appellant was represented by a lawyer from the duty lawyer service and in mitigation she said on his behalf that the Appellant was a tour guide working in the Philippines.  She also said the Appellant had come to Hong Kong as a tourist and had lost all his properties and had also failed to locate the South Korean consulate.  And so in desperation for something to eat, the Appellant committed the present offence.

4.  The Learned Magistrate bore in mind in sentencing the Appellant that the Appellant had a clear record in Hong Kong and that this was a more serious form of theft because it involved some degree of force.  The Magistrate then said that this offence was similar to pickpocketing in a public place where a person of clear record could expect sentence in the region of 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment. 

5.  The Learned Magistrate having considered the Appellant’s personal circumstances then adopted a lower starting point of 9 months imprisonment and reduced it by 1/3, because of the Appellant’s plea, to a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment. 

6.  The Appellant had appealed against the sentence on the grounds of it being manifestly excessive and that he was not part of syndicate of pickpocketing and therefore the sentence should not be so severe.

7.  In this case the snatching by the Appellant was done in circumstances where the Appellant initially had made an excuse to see the victim’s handbag. And in doing so, he then had been opportunity to snatch the handbag and could have got away, had the victim’s husband not been alert and managed to catch the Appellant.  So this offence was committed with some degree of planning.

8.  The sentence though heavy, nevertheless, is not manifestly excessive.  And I therefore dismiss the appeal.