HKSAR v. RICHARD PEREZ ROLDAN AND ANOTHER

DCCC53/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 53 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The 1st defendant, Mr Perez Roldan Richard, and the 2nd defendant, Mr Rivera Urteaga Jorge Alberto, pleaded guilty to one count of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.  The particulars of the offence are that they, on 1 December 2011, at KFC Restaurant, 1st Floor, Nos. 2-4A Cameron Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, stole one handbag, the property belonging to another.

Facts Admitted

2.  The 1st and the 2nd defendants are Peruvian nationals who came to Hong Kong on 12 and 20 November 2011 respectively. 

3.  On 1 December 2011, at about 2105 hours, the two defendants wandered around for about two minutes inside the KFC Restaurant at 1st Floor, 2-4A Cameron Road, Tsim Sha Tsui watching the patrons there.  They then stood behind a Turkish female tourist who hung her handbag behind her seat.  The 2nd defendant took the handbag and passed it to the 1st defendant who put the handbag inside the rucksack he was carrying.  They left the restaurant immediately but were pursued and intercepted by the police officers who had kept them under observation. 

4.  The handbag was recovered from the rucksack of the 1st defendant.  It contained 106 Turkish Lira in cash, which is worth about HK$471, a Turkish identity card, a driving licence, four credit cards and three membership cards.  The defendants remained silent when they were arrested for the offence of theft.    

Criminal Record

5.  Both defendants have a clear record. 

Mitigation

6.  According to the antecedent which the 1st defendant agrees, he is aged 45, educated up to lower secondary level in Peru and is a hawker by occupation, earning about HK$5,000 a month.  

7.  The solicitor representing the 1st defendant supplements that the 1st defendant is married with several children.  He has come to Hong Kong to buy products to take back to Peru.  The two defendants came to Hong Kong separately and were not a syndicate. 

8.  The solicitor points out that the case is at the bottom end of the scale in terms of seriousness.  The handbag had been recovered and there was no property loss to the victim.  There is no aggravating factor featured in the case.  The 1st defendant has a clear record and pleads guilty to the offence at the first opportunity.  The solicitor asks the court to treat the 1st defendant leniently. 

9.  The 2nd defendant is aged 59 and has been a taxi driver in Peru for over 30 years.  According to the solicitor representing the defendant, he is approaching the time of retirement.  Because of the high costs of petrol and vehicles in Peru, the 2nd defendant changed his job and had come to Hong Kong to buy things, particularly clothing, to take back to Peru for sale.  He had US$1,000 and HK$9,000-odd with him and further money could be remitted to Hong Kong through Western Union if required. 

10.  The 2nd defendant pleads guilty and is remorseful.  The solicitor stresses that the 2nd defendant has a clear record and there is no aggravating factor in the present case.  He asks the court to treat the 2nd defendant leniently.    

Sentence

11.  This sort of pick-pocket style theft is a serious offence.  Its evil lies in the grave inconvenience it causes to the victims who find themselves having their money and valuable belongings including identity documents and credit cards stolen.  The process of reporting such losses and having the identity documents and credit cards replaced is not only time consuming but is also a most unpleasant experience. 

12.  The offence in the present case took place in Tsim Sha Tsui, which is a place frequented by tourists.  It is not difficult to imagine how helpless and stressful a situation a tourist would be in when he has lost all his money and travel documents.  Being stranded in a foreign place with no money is definitely an awful experience nobody would like to encounter.   

13.  In the present case, the victim happens to be a tourist.  Such an offence will no doubt tarnish the reputation of Hong Kong as a place of tourist attraction and shopping paradise.  This is certainly an aggravating factor in the present case. 

14.  Although the two defendants came to Hong Kong separately, and I am told by solicitors for the defendants that they only came to know each other in Hong Kong, they nevertheless ganged up to commit the present offence. 

15.  According to the observation of the police officers, the defendants wandered around inside the KFC Restaurant for about two minutes before they acted on the victim in the present case.  This clearly shows that the crime in the present case was a planned move and was not committed out of momentary greed.  This naturally makes the present case more serious.  

16.  The defendants are tourists in Hong Kong.  Although there is no evidence that their purpose of coming to Hong Kong was to commit the crime of pick-pocketing, the circumstances of the present case are such that they must have discussed and agreed on and made plan for the crime.  This is no doubt a further aggravating factor the court has to consider. 

17.  In the case of HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1, which is also referred to by the solicitor for the 1st defendant in the mitigation, it was said that for an offence of this sort, in the absence of aggravating factors, a sentence of 12 to 15 months after trial was appropriate.  There are ample authorities saying that when there were aggravating factors the starting point could be increased.    

18.  Having considered the whole circumstances of the present case, including the mitigation put forward by the solicitors for the defendants and the aggravating factors the court has set out, the court adopts a starting point of 2½ years’ imprisonment for each of the defendants in the present case, who are equally culpable.   

19.  Giving credit to the guilty plea of the defendants, the court sentences each one of them to 1 year 8 months’ imprisonment.