HKSAR v. LIU CHEUK WAI

DCCC 645/2017

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 645 OF 2017

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to 4 charges of "Theft". He stole a total of 4 mobile phones at various commercial locations in Sheung Shui within a month.

2.  The defendant committed all 4 offences with the same modus operandi.  On the respective offence dates, the defendant walked into a different massage parlour pretending to be a customer requesting for service.  Whilst the respective masseuses were busy preparing to serve the defendant, he stole the masseuse's mobile phone, which was placed in the shop unattended.  As a result, the defendant stole a total of 4 mobile phones.

3.  The defendant was arrested by the Police at his home.  Under caution, he admitted having stolen all 4 mobile phones and sold them.

Mitigation & Sentence

4.  The defendant is 33 and single.  He has 25 conviction records which included 27 "Theft" offences.  Defence counsel Mr. BOK informed me that the defendant had an unhappy upbringing.  His mother deserted the family when he was 2.  His father passed away when the defendant was 4.  The defendant was raised by his paternal grandparents.  The defendant completed F.1 to F.4 in England.  He resides with his grandparents at a property owned by them in Yuen Long.

5.  In mitigation, Mr. BOK submitted that the defendant was a "parallel importer" earning $12,000 per month.  He committed the present offences out of greed. Regarding his grandparents, the defendant has not been able to contact them since being remanded in jail custody.  A friend informed him that both of them are in the hospital.

6.  I have considered the decision by Deputy High Court Judge M. Poon (as she then was) in 香港特別行政區訴朱浩泉HCMA 421/2009 (Chinese judgment).  In the present case, the defendant acted alone; pretended to be a customer; took advantage of the moment when the masseuse was busy with her work; stole the mobile phone and left the shop.  In my view, he might have picked the massage parlours at random, but he certainly had a well thought out plan to steal each time.

7.  I consider the defendant's stealing acts akin to "Pickpocketing", which warrant a starting point of 12 months' imprisonment for each charge.  The defendant is clearly a repeated offender of "Theft" offences.  I must raise the starting point to 15 months' imprisonment for the purpose of deterrence.  A one-third discount is given for the guilty pleas.  I sentence him to 10 months' imprisonment for each charge. 

8.  The aggregate value of the 4 stolen mobile phones is about $21,000.  I consider a global starting point of 27 months' imprisonment appropriate for Charges 1 to 4.  With the guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 18 months.  To achieve this, I order the sentences to run in the following manner :-

(i)  2 months in Charge 2 consecutive to Charge 1;

(ii) 3 months in Charge 3 consecutive to Charges 1 and 2; and

(iii) 3 months in Charge 4 consecutive to Charges 1 to 3.

Thus, arriving at a total prison term of 18 months for all 4 charges.

9.  The defendant has spent most of his time in prison since 2003.  The court can only do so much in deterring a repeated offender by way of a heavy penalty.  Whilst the sentence must carry a deterrent effect, it cannot go out of proportion.  The defendant is only 33.  To live a law-abiding life with dignity or to continue being a criminal is a matter entirely for him.  He will have to face the consequences of his choice.