HKSAR v. WAN CHI MAN

DCCC291/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO.291 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

           The defendant was charged with 13 counts of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

           The defendant pleaded guilty to Charge 1 to 8, 11 and 13; and admitted the facts. He was convicted accordingly. The remaining charges are put on the court file not to be proceeded without leave.

Facts

           In early August 2008, the defendant answered to PW1’s advertisement and indicated interest in his fastfood stall business. They appointed to meet each other a few days later, during the meeting, the defendant asked to borrow PW1’s mobile phone worth ($2,800)and left with the phone. (Charge 1)

           On 8 April 2009, the defendant answered to PW2’s advertisement and indicated interest in her stall. They appointed to meet each other on 11 April; during the meeting the defendant asked to borrow PW2’s mobile phone (worth $5,000) and left with the phone. (Charge 2)

           On 16 April 2009, the defendant answered to PW3’s advertisement and indicated interest in her stall. They appointed to meet each other on 18 April; during the meeting someone called PW3 mobile phone (worth $2180)asking for the defendant, PW3 passed over the phone to the defendant, the defendant then left with the phone. (Charge 3)

           On 31 July 2009, the defendant answered to PW4’s advertisement and indicated interest in her stall. They appointed to meet each other on 1 August; during the meeting the defendant asked to borrow PW4’s mobile phone (Worth $500) and left with the phone. (Charge 4)

           On 1 September 2009, the defendant answered to PW5’s advertisement and indicated interest in her stall. They appointed to meet on the same day; during the meeting someone called PW5’s mobile phone (worth $3,600), defendant said the caller was his wife, PW5 passed over her phone to defendant, who then left with the phone. (Charge 5)

           On 23 September 2009, the defendant answered to PW6’s advertisement and indicated interest in her restaurant. They appointed to meet on 24 September; during the meeting the defendant asked to borrow PW6’s mobile phone (worth $5,000) and left with the phone. (Charge 6)

           On 23 September 2009, the defendant answered to PW7’s advertisement and indicated interest in her restaurant. They appointed to meet on 24 September; during the meeting the defendant asked to borrow PW7’s mobile phone (worth $800) and left with the phone. (Charge 7)

           On 3 October PW8’s boss introduced the defendant as a potential buyer of the boss’s business to PW8. On 5 October, the defendant came to the shop and discuss PW8 salary, during which the defendant asked to borrow PW8’s mobile phone (worth $3,280), and left with the phone. (Charge 8)

           On 18 November 2009, the defendant was arrested for Charge 1.

           On 20 November 2009, the defendant entered PW9’s shop and indicated interest in her business and said would come again with his wife. Later that night, the defendant came alone and borrowed PW9’s mobile phone (worth $5,000) to call his wife. The defendant then left with the phone. (Charge 11)

           On 5 January 2010, the defendant answered to PW10’s advertisement and indicated interest in her stall. The appointed to meet on 6 January 2010, during the meeting the defendant asked to borrow PW10’s mobile phone (worth $2,500), and left with the phone. (Charge 13)

           On 7 January 2010, the defendant was arrested and PW10’s mobile phone was found on him.

           On each and every occasion, the victims invariably wanted to sell their business, the defendant pretended to be a potential buyer and during the meeting made out excuses to get the victims passed their mobile phone to him and left with the phone. I consider the appropriate starting point for each charge to be 9 months.

Mitigation

           The defendant aged 38 married with a son aged 5, the wife and the son live in mainland. The defendant used to be a casual delivery worker earning about $6000 per month, whole family rely on him. Since his remand he lost contact with his family. He committed the offences out of greed.

           The defendant has 13 convictions, 8 of which is theft. He was last convicted on 17 November 2008 for theft of mobile phone and sentenced for 6 months. He was released in March 2009, soon after he started to commit further offences in April and continued even after his first arrest for charge one in November 2009, he was re-arrested in January 2010 and remanded since then. I consider the defendant is a persistent offender and the sentence imposed on him before obviously did not have any deterrent effect on him, this amount to an aggravating factor and I raise the starting point by 3 months to 12 months.

           The defendant entitled to 1/3 discount for his plea. I do not consider there to be any mitigating factor call for further deduction. However, taking into account of the totality consideration, I order the sentence to run partly concurrent and partly consecutive, making a total of 26 months imprisonment.

Order

1. sentenced to 8 months;

2. sentenced to 8 months, 2 month consecutive;

3. sentenced to 8 months, 2 month consecutive;

4. sentenced to 8 months, 2 month consecutive;

5. sentenced to 8 months, 2 month consecutive;

6. sentenced to 8 months, 2 month consecutive;

7. sentenced to 8 months, 2 month consecutive;

8. sentenced to 8 months, 2 month consecutive;

11. sentenced to 8 months, 2 month consecutive;

13. sentenced to 8 months, 2 month consecutive;

making a total of 26 months imprisonment.