HKSAR v. PANG CHEUK SHING

DCCC 1104/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1104 OF 2015

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of “Theft”, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210 (first to third charges.

Facts

2.  The first charge relates to a pickpocketing incident on 26 October 2015.  At around 9 am that day, when Madam Tam Po Ling was shopping in a meat store in To Kwa Wan, the defendant took her wallet from her handbag.  In the wallet were cash of HK$500, one Octopus card, one Hong Kong Identity Card, some cards, two bank cards and a piece of paper with pass codes of the two bank cards.  The defendant’s act of stealing was captured by CCTV.

3.  The second charge relates to another pickpocketing incident on 2 November 2015.  At around 9 am that day, when Madam Yuen Siu Yung was shopping in a grocery store in To Kwan Wan, the defendant took her smartphone from the outer pocket of her rucksack. The value of the smartphone is about HK$3,000.

4.  The third charge relates to another pickpocketing incident on 9 November 2015.  At around 9 am that day, when Madam Weng Lixin was shopping in a vegetable store in To Kwa Wan, the defendant took her smartphone from the outer pocket of her handbag. The defendant’s act was under observation by police officers patrolling in the vicinity.  The defendant was intercepted by the police when he left the vegetable store.

5.  Under caution, the defendant admitted stealing the smartphone of Madam Weng out of greed.  The value of the smartphone is about HK$800.

6.  In subsequent interviews, the defendant admitted under caution that he was the one who stole Madam Tam’s wallet on 26 October 2015.  He took the cash of HK$500 and threw away the wallet.  He was also the person who stole Madam Yuen’s smartphone on 2 November 2015.  He later sold the smartphone for HK$500. 

Mitigation

7.  The defendant is aged 65, married with a 14-year-old son.  Prior to the arrest, he lived with his wife and son and worked as odd job worker in tea houses earning about HK$2,000 per month.  His wife is working and only pays for the rent of the premises.  He committed the offences as he needed money to support the living of his son. The defendant has 22 previous conviction records, all relate to theft.  He was last convicted in August 2014 and was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months.  

8.  In mitigation, Ms Chan referred to HKSAR v Wong Kang Sun, CACC 265/2013 and submitted that the offences were opportunistic, that the defendant was not a professional pickpocket, he acted alone and no tools were used.  Ms Chan asked the court to adopt a lesser enhancement for the aggravating features.

Sentence

9.  Pickpocketing is a serious and irritating offence.  Apart from the financial loss, the victims of pickpocketing often suffer serious

inconvenience and frustration resulting from loss of identity documents and personal items. Therefore, the offence must be deterred.

10.  It is well settled that the usual starting point is 12-15 months’ imprisonment after trial for a first offender.  The starting point can be adjusted upward for the presence of aggravating features such as presence or use of a weapon, where the offence is committed in a place in which the public is at particular risk, where the accused commits the offence in conjunction with another, where the accused is a repeat offender or a persistent one etc. (see HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy, CACC 107/2004).

11.  In the present case, I accept the defendant committed the offences in circumstances which were opportunistic.  The offences were not sophisticated, but basic and simple pickpocketing with the defendant acting alone without any tools.  In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the appropriate starting point for each offence should be 12 months’ imprisonment. 

12.  All the offences were committed at around 9 am in a meat, grocery or vegetable store.  I have the opportunity to have a look at the photos taken of the stores in question. Photos of the stores for the first and second charges were taken around the time of the offence while photos of the store for the third charge were taken the next day at around 4 pm.  Although the photos do not show that the stores were very crowded, they do show there were quite a number of customers in the stores.  In the circumstances, I find the customers shopping there at that time were at a risk of being victims of pickpocketing.  Therefore, the starting point is enhanced by 3 months to reflect this aggravating feature.

13.  The defendant has a long list of previous convictions.  Since 1973, he has been before courts on 17 occasions in relation to 22 offences.  All these relate to theft, attempted theft or pickpocketing.  The defendant had been sentenced for these theft offences for imprisonment ranging from 3 weeks to 16 months.  His last conviction for theft was in August 2014 and he was last released from prison in May 2015.   Given the records of the defendant, I am satisfied that the starting point should be substantially increased by 9 months.

14.  As the defendant pleaded guilty to the three charges, he is entitled to the usual 1/3 discount for his plea.  Therefore, the sentence for each charge is reduced to 16 months. Apart from his guilty plea, I do not see other valid mitigating factor justifying further reduction of sentence.

15.  The three offences were committed on different dates at different locations.  They do not arise from the same incident and are not related to each other.  In theory, the sentences for the three offences should run consecutively.  Taking into consideration the totality principle, I am satisfied that a total sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment is sufficient to reflect the total criminality of the defendant’s act.  In the circumstances, I order that 2 months of the sentence for charge 2 to run consecutively to the sentence for charge 1 and 2 months of the sentence for charge 3 to run consecutively to the sentence for charge 1, the remainder to run concurrently. I hereby sentence the defendant to a total sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment.