HKSAR v. NWOSU CHRISTOPHER OKECHI also known as NWOSU OKECHI, CHRISTOPER AND NGARI AND ANOTHER

DCCC 248/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 248 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Both defendants have pleaded guilty today. Their best mitigation is their plea.

2.  The 1st defendant faces Charge 1.  It is a handling stolen goods charge, contrary to section 24 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

3.  The 2nd defendant faces the second charge, that of obtaining property by deception, contrary to section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

4.  Both are jointly charged with Charge 3, attempting to obtain property by deception.

5.  The facts of this case are straightforward.  The 1st and 2nd defendant and an unknown male entered an electronic and phone shop on 17 December 2014 at about 2 pm.  It was the 1st defendant who communicated with the salesman.  He asked the salesman for a Samsung S5 mobile phone.  After testing this phone, he paid for it with a credit card.  The transaction must have been successful, because he signed a credit card slip. The phone was worth $3,480.

6.  The 1st defendant then told the same salesman that he wanted a second phone for his wife.  Without testing the phone, he handed over the same credit card.  At this stage the salesman became suspicious and noticed that the surname of the cardholder was Wong, something he should have noticed earlier.  He then called the police.

7.  When the police arrived, they searched the 1st defendant and found a wallet with eight other genuine credit cards in it.  None belonged to the defendant.  In total there were nine genuine credit cards belonging to four victims in total.

8.  The 2nd defendant was also searched, and in his pocket the police found a purchase invoice and a credit card receipt for $778 for items purchased in a shop, Cotton On, on the same day, only several hours earlier.  The card used to purchase these items was the same card that the 1st defendant used to buy the first mobile phone and attempt to buy the second mobile phone.

9.  Under caution, the 1st defendant denied knowledge of the eight cards in the wallet found on him.  He also said he thought that the card he had used to buy mobile phones belonged to the Chinese male who asked him to shop with it.  In return, he would be given a mobile phone.

10.  The 2nd defendant, under caution, also denied the offences and said he was given the Cotton On receipt and invoice by the 1st defendant.  He did not know where he was on the material day.

11.  Despite these denials, both defendants have sensibly pleaded guilty today.

12.  I have been informed the 1st defendant has three previous convictions, none similar to the charges here.  The 2nd defendant has one previous conviction, again not similar to the offences here.

13.  Both defendants are Form 8 holders, both asylum seekers in Hong Kong.  The 1st defendant came from Nigeria in 2007 and is now 32 years old.  The 2nd defendant came from Pakistan in 2009 and is now 28 years old.  Both defendants are single, but the 1st defendant has a young son by his Indonesian girlfriend, both residing in Hong Kong.

14.  Mr Whitehouse, for the 1st defendant, has said all he can in mitigation.  He has also referred me to the authority of HKSAR v Lam Sze Chung, Stephen, CACC 339/2012, which in turn refers to often-quoted authorities where sentencing credit card offences is concerned. He urges the court to consider a 2‑year starting point for Charge 3.  The 1st defendant has also written a letter of mitigation expressing his remorse.

15.  Mr Ng, for the 2nd defendant, has also said and written all he can in mitigation.  He too refers to the same authorities, which are R v Chan Sui To [1996] 2 HKCLR 128, as well as HKSAR v Tu I Lang CACC 464/2006.  He also refers the court to two other relevant authorities, HKSAR v Watt Siu Hung, CACC 93/2001, as well as HKSAR v Cheung Ka Wo, Johnny [2002] 2 HKC 517.

16.  Without going into detail of all those authorities I have referred to, what is clear is the Court of Appeal has found appropriate on many occasions a 3‑year or less starting point for a simple credit card case, “simple” meaning that not many cards are involved; the amount of loss suffered is either minimal or not significant; there is no evidence of a syndicate; the operation is not sophisticated; and there is no international dimension to the offences.  These would be aggravating factors which would increase the starting point.

17.  Here, none exist except for the fact that there are two defendants who are shopping at the same time with stolen cards, most likely supplied by others who remain at large.  They have been used by others, clearly tempted by financial reward for taking the risk of handling and using the credit cards.

18.  After careful consideration of the facts, mitigation put forward, as well as the background of both defendants, I see no reason to depart from what the Court of Appeal has said time and time again is an appropriate starting point.  These types of offences must be deterred.  They are prevalent, and the potential loss could have been significant if the cards had been used in other shops.

19.  Despite Mr Whitehouse’s submission, I will take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment for Charge 3.  I find it appropriate to take the same starting point for Charges 1 and 2.  I accept these offences are connected.  They are part and parcel of the same scheme, and I will order all sentences to run concurrently.

20.  Defendants, please stand up.  Because of your pleas today you are entitled to a discount of one-third from the starting point.  After this discount is applied, the 1st defendant, for Charge 1, is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

21.  The 2nd defendant, for Charge 2, is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

22.  Both the 1st and 2nd defendants, for Charge 3, are sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

23.  All sentences will be served concurrently. Therefore, both defendants will serve a total of 2 years’ imprisonment.

COURT: Does the 1st defendant understand the sentence?

1ST DEFENDANT: Yes.

COURT: 2nd defendant?

2ND DEFENDANT: Yes.