HKSAR v. LO CHI FUNG AND OTHERS

DCCC 322/2019

[2020] HKDC 463

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 322 OF 2019

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The three defendants were convicted of charges of shop theft on their own plea and agreement to an Amended Summary of Facts.

2.  D1 was convicted of Charge 1, Charge 6 and Charge 8; Charge 4, Charge 5 and Charge 9 jointly with D2 and Charge 7 and Charge 11 jointly with D2 and D3.

3.  D2 is convicted of Charges 2 and Charge 3; Charges 4, Charge 5 and Charge 9 jointly with D1 and Charge 7 and Charge 11 jointly with D1 and D3.

4.  D3 is convicted of Charge 7 and Charge 11 jointly with D1 and D2 and Charge 10.

5.  At the request of the prosecution, Charges 2, 3 and 10 against D1, Charges 6, 8 and 12 against D2 and Charge 9 against D3 have been ordered to be put on court file and not to be proceeded with against these defendants without leave of the court.

Facts

Charge 1 (against D1)

6.  On 12 December 2017, upon stock taking, a staff of Wellcome Supermarket, as particularised in the particulars of offence, found four bottles of sake and ten bottles of wine went missing. 

7.  CCTV footages of the supermarket revealed that on 12 December 2017, D1 put bottles of red wine into a shopping cart pushed by another person and they left the supermarket together, with that man carrying a filled black backpack.

8.  D1 was arrested on 24 November 2018. 

9.  In the cautioned interview conducted with D1, he admitted that he stole the red wine in a supermarket at “Wah Fu” for consumption at the end of year 2017, together with another man, “Ah Ken”.

10.  Stolen bottles of sake and wine were properties belonging to The Dairy Farm Company Limited valued at $3,170 in total.

Charge 2 (against D2)

11.  On 12 September 2018, the shop manager of Market Place by Jasons, as particularised in the particulars of offence, found six bottles of wine missing from the shelf.  No purchase record was located.

12.  D2 was arrested on 6 December 2018.

13.  In a video-recorded interview conducted with D2, D2 admitted that he stole red wine at the above supermarket with two others. He was responsible for packing the stolen wine into a bag he carried.

14.  The stolen bottles of wine were properties belonging to The Dairy Farm Company Limited, valued at HK$2,528 in total.

Charge 3 (against D2)

15.  On 17 September 2018, upon a regular stock check, the shop manager of SU-PA-DE-PA, as particularised in the particulars of offence, found six bottles of wine went missing.

16.  CCTV footages of the supermarket revealed that on 15 September 2018, D2 and another person together put some bottles of wine into a shopping cart from the shelf.  A few minutes later, they packed the bottles of wine from the shopping cart into a backpack D2 was carrying.

17.  D2 was arrested on 6 December 2018.

18.  In a video-recorded interview D2 admitted he stole the red wine at the supermarket with two others and was responsible for packing the stolen wine into a bag he carried.

19.  The stolen bottles of wine were properties belonging to A S Watson Group (HK) Limited, valued at HK$2,324 in total.

Charge 4 (against D1 and D2)

20.  On 22 September 2018, the shop manager of ParknShop, as particularised in the particulars of offence, found four bottles of plum wine missing from the shelf.

21.  CCTV footages of the supermarket revealed that on 21 September 2018, D1 put some bottles of plum wine into the shopping cart that was being pushed by D2.  About two minutes later, D2 packed four bottles of plum wine from the shelf into the backpack he carried.

22.  D1 and D2 were arrested on 6 December.

23.  The stolen bottles of plum wine were properties belonging to A S Watson Group (HK) Limited, valued at $716 in total.

Charge 5 (against D1 and D2)

24.  On 10 November 2018, the assistant shop manager of Market Place by Jasons, as particularised in the particulars of offence, found two bottles of red wine missing from the display case near the cashier.

25.  CCTV footages of the supermarket revealed that on 10 November 2018, D1 placed two bottles of red wine onto the ground near the shelves selling foods and drinks.  Moments later, D2 picked up the red wine on the ground and packed them into the backpack placed in a shopping cart.

26.  D1 and D2 were arrested on 6 December.

27.  In a video-recorded interview conducted with D1, D1 admitted he stole two bottles of red wine in the supermarket.  He then he sold this stolen red wine in Sham Shui Po.

28.  The stolen properties were belonging to The Dairy Farm Company Limited, valued at HK$2,396 in total.

Charge 6 (against D1)

29.  On 17 November 2018, the shop manager of Fusion Supermarket, as particularised in the particulars offence, found 30 bottles of wine missing from the shelf.

30.  CCTV footages of the supermarket revealed that on 16 November 2018, D1 and another person packed several bottles of wine into a travel bag and a recycle bag placed in the shopping cart that the other person was pushing.

31.  D1 was arrested on 6 December 2018.

32.  In a video-recorded interview conducted with D1, he admitted that he stole the red wine in the supermarket and then he sold them in Sham Shui Po.

33.  The stolen bottles of wine were properties belonging to

A S Watson Group (HK) Limited, valued at HK$8,784 in total.

Charge 7 (against D1, D2 and D3)

34.  On 19 November 2018, the shop manager of Fusion Supermarket, as particularised in the particulars of offence, found 16 broken “anti-theft rings” originally attached on bottled wine on the shelf.  Upon checking, 17 bottles of wine went missing.

35.  CCTV footages of the supermarket revealed that on 19 November 2018, D1 took some bottles of wine from the shelf.  He was then captured giving the shopping cart he was pushing, which contained many bottles of wine, to D2.  D2 then cut the anti-theft rings on the wine using a cutter and packed the bottles of wine into a travel bag he carried. 

36.  D3 appeared in the supermarket before D1 and D2 left.

37.  D1, D2 and D3 were arrested on 6 December 2018.

38.  In video-recorded interviews conducted with the defendants, D1 admitted he stole the red wine in the supermarket and then sold them in Sham Shui Po; D2 admitted he stole the red wine at the supermarket with two others and was responsible for packing the stolen wine into the bag he carried; and D3 admitted he was responsible to carry the stolen bottles of wine from the entrance to a vehicle to transport away.

39.  The stolen bottles of wine were properties belonging to A S Watson Group Limited valued at HK$5,487 in total.

Charge 8 (against D1)

40.  On 21 November 2018, the shop manager of Wellcome Supermarket, as particularised in the particulars of offence, found 12 bottles of wine went missing.

41.  CCTV footages of the supermarket revealed that on 19 November 2018, D1 took six bottles of wine from the shelf and put them into a trolley carried by another person.  He then took a box of wine from the shelf.  D1 and the other person were captured leaving the supermarket with a box of wine and a trolley without payment.

42.  D1 was arrested on 6 December 2018.

43.  In a video-recorded interview conducted with D1, he admitted he stole the red wine in the supermarket and sold the red wine in Sham Shui Po.

44.  The stolen bottles of wine were properties belonging to The Dairy Farm Company Limited, valued at HK$3,587 in total.

Charge 9 (against D1 and D2)

45.                On 27 November 2018, the shop manager of Fusion Supermarket, as particularised in the particulars of offence, found six broken “anti-theft rings” on one of the shelves in the supermarket.  Six bottles of wine were found missing upon stock check.

45. CCTV footages of the supermarket showed that on 26 November 2018, D2 used a cutter to remove the anti-theft rings on some bottles of wine placed in the shopping cart he was pushing. D1 and D2 then packed the six bottles of wine from the shopping cart into the blue recycle bag.

46.  D1 and D2 were arrested on 6 December 2018.

47.  In the video-recorded interviews that followed, D1 admitted he stole the red wine in the supermarket and sold them in Sham Shui Po and D2 admitted he stole the red wine in the supermarket with two others and was responsible for packing the stolen wine into a bag he carried.

48.  The stolen bottles of wine were properties belonging to A S Watson Group (HK) Limited, valued at HK$2,074 in total.

Charge 10 (against D3)

49.  On 5 December 2018, the shop manager of Fusion Supermarket, as particularised in the particulars of offence, found 24 bottles of wine missing.

50.  CCTV footages of the supermarket revealed on 4 December 2018, D3 and another person packed bottles of wine from a shopping cart into two recycle bags which was later carried by D3.

51.  D3 was arrested on 6 December 2018. 

52.  In a video-recorded interview conducted with D3, D3 admitted he put 24 bottles of wine in a recycle bag and carried them to a vehicle to transport away.  He then sold the stolen bottles of wine in Sham Shui Po.

53.  The stolen bottles of wine were properties belonging to A S Watson Group (HK) Limited, valued at HK$8,232 in total.

Charge 11 (against D1, D2 and D3)

54.  On 6 December 2018, Mr Wai (“Wai”) was found driving a vehicle registration RN 971.  At about 4:32 pm on the same day, the vehicle was seen stopped in Morrison Street.  D1 and D2 were observed leaving the vehicle to enter Fusion Supermarket, as particularised in the particulars of offences.  D2 was carrying a black travel bag.  Around five minutes later, D3 was seen entering the supermarket with bare hands.  He then came out from the supermarket one minute later carrying the travel bag D2 carried before.

55.  Wai who stayed in the vehicle was arrested.

56.  At the same time, D3, carrying the travel bag, suddenly rushed to a corner near Sheung Wan Market.  He later came out from the corner with bare hands.  He was intercepted by police.  The travel bag was recovered on the ground at the said corner.  There were 10 bottles of wine in the travel bag.  D3 was hence arrested and cautioned for “Conspiracy to steal” and under caution, D3 claimed the wines were stolen by an “Ah Fung” and an “Ah Dan”.  He only acted as a lookout and to receive the stolen goods.  He dropped the bag of stolen wines after seeing the arrest of Wai.

57.  Moments later, D1 walked out from the supermarket and was intercepted by police.  He was arrested and cautioned for “Theft”. Under caution, D1 claimed he stole red wine for selling as he had no money.

58.  A further 20 minutes later, D2 was intercepted outside the supermarket.  He was arrested and cautioned for “Theft”.  Under caution, D2 claimed he stole red wine for selling as he had no money.  Upon body search, a pair of pliers and a cutter was found in D2’s right front trouser pocket.

59.  In the video-recorded interview that followed:-

(1) D1 admitted that he stole 10 bottles of red wine from the supermarket and placed them into a black bag. He then asked D3 to carry the bag to leave the supermarket.

(2) D2 also admitted his participation of theft in this incident. D1 was responsible to take the bottled wines from the shelf and he packed the wines in a black bag and handed them to D3 to carry away. He admitted the pliers and cutter found on him upon arrest were for removing any anti-theft devices or label. He did not use them in this incident.

(3) D3 admitted his participation of theft in this incident and he was responsible for carrying the black bag packed with stolen wines away from the supermarket. He was scared when he saw the police officers arresting Wai, so he dropped the bag at roadside.

60.  The 10 stolen bottles of wine were properties belonging to

A S Watson Group (HK) Limited valued at HK$3,586 in total.

Criminal Records

61.  D1 has 14 previous records with 63 previous convictions of which 23 convictions are theft related.

62.  D2 has 26 previous records with 29 previous convictions of which 8 are theft related.

63.  D3 has 17 previous records with 28 previous convictions of which 18 are theft related.

Mitigation

D1

64.  D1 is aged 44.  He is the only child of the family.  He has a son, aged 9 from his former relationship with his ex‑girlfriend. The son now lives with his former girlfriend. 

65.  D1 says his mother is getting old and his former girlfriend had left him as he failed to get back to the right track.

66.  He is now determined to start afresh.

67.  D1 quitted school in Form 3.  Later, he started delivery business with a few friends.  Unfortunately, he indulged in gambling and ended up losing his business and incurred debt of over $0.6 million.  His parents sold their family home in order to help him to repay his debts.  When D1 got in trouble with the law, his parents and his former girlfriend always visited him and encouraged him to rehabilitate.

68.  D1 says he committed the offences because he needed money to support his drug addiction, but now he says he is genuinely remorseful.  He has also quit his drug addiction habit during detention and he wishes to start afresh.

69.  It is said that D1 has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and that he is entitled to a one-third sentencing discount. 

70.  D1 is also willing to apply $4,000 towards compensation for the loss of some of the victims and he vows that he will make up the balance of the loss for the victims after release.  He asks this court for leniency and forgiveness. 

71.  Defence counsel for D1 has submitted to this court a mitigation letter from him asking for a chance to start afresh.

72.  Defence counsel for D1 also pointed out to this court that as D1 had committed the Charge 1 offence on the same day as another theft offence in case number STCC 1643/2018, for which he was sentenced to 18 weeks’ imprisonment, that this court, when considering sentence for D1 in relation to Charge 1, should have to take that into consideration.  In that case it is said that D1 stole 17 bottles of wine with others.  D1 had also committed another theft offence after Charge 1 offence and before Charge 4 offence.  He was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment for this other offence and he stole seven bottles of wine. 

73.  He acted alone in that case.

D2

74.  D2 is aged 46.  He received education up to Form 3 level.  He is single and lives with his mother, aged 63 years old.  He has one elder sister, two younger sisters and one elder brother.

75.  It said that before the arrest the defendant has been taking care of his mother who is said to be immobilised and he used to work as a casual worker in construction sites.  It is said by defence counsel for D2 that due to his instability of his work, D2 took the risk and committed the seven offences.

76.  Defence counsel also handed to this court mitigation letters from D2, his mother, his three sisters, brother-in-law, former employer.  They all ask this court to pass lenient sentence on D2 saying that he is a responsible member of the family, a loving son and a good employee.

77.  It is also understood by this court that by this time that the defendant had paid in full compensation for all victims of the charges for which he has been convicted in the sum of $15,525, i.e. the total value of the loss to the victims under Charges 2 to 5, 7 and 9.

78.  Defence counsel for D2 urged this court to accept a sentencing starting point of 6 months for Charges 2, 3, 5, 9 and 11 and 5 months for Charge 4, and then enhancing the sentencing starting point by 25 per cent as D2 is a persistent offender, and that further enhance the sentencing starting point by 1 month for each offence as D2 has committed the offence together with others.

79.  He also urges this court for a one-third sentencing discount as D2 has pleaded guilty.  He also asks this court for a further sentencing discount to reflect D2’s full compensation to the victims. 

80.  In addition, he asks this court to consider the totality principle, bringing the total sentence on D2 to no more than 20 months’ imprisonment. 

81.  Defence counsel for D2 referred this court to the cases of HKSAR v Yang Yan Yun, HCMA 54/2013, HKSAR v Nguyen Van Thang, HCMA 10/2017, and HKSAR v Nguyen Thu Ha, DCCC 468/2017.

D3

82.  D3 is now aged 42.  He had received education up to Form 3.  He is a casual warehouse worker earning a monthly salary of HK$13,000 per month and he lived in a cubicle in Boundary Street prior to his remand.

83.  D3 separated from his wife since year 2008.  His mother and brother did not live with him.

84.  D3 was convicted of Charges 7, 10 and 11. Although defence counsel for D3 said that the loss sustained by the supermarket in the three charges total HK$17,305.  Actually the goods covered under Charge 11 were recovered on the date of offence and so the total loss should be HK$13,719. It was said D3 co-operated fully with the police during the investigation showing his remorse and that he volunteered his involvement in the 7th, 9th and 10th charges which took place well before his arrest on 6 December 2018.  It is said that without his admission, police would encounter great difficulty in laying these charges against D3.

85.  It is also submitted by defence counsel for D3 that although the offences were in some way organised, they are far from being sophisticated or professional.  It was said that the modus operandi was that D1 put some wines into a cart and D2 removed the anti-theft rings on the bottles and then put the wines beside his bag and went out of the supermarket.  D3 would carry the stolen wines to a vehicle and transport them away.  It is also said that the role played by D3 is less serious than that of D1 and D2.

86.  Defence counsel for D3 has cited to this court the cases HKSAR v Cheng Sau Yuk [2012] 5 HKLRD 415, HKSAR v Nguyen Anh Cuong [2012] 4 HKC 29, HKSAR v Nguyen Thu Ha [2018] HKCA 368. 

87.  He submitted that the present case is closest to the facts of Nguyen Thu Ha and that the modus operandi is far from being sophisticated.  It is also said that the amounts of goods involved in these charges are not big. 

88.  Defence counsel for D3 said D3 now is deeply remorseful as to what he has done and he suggested a starting point of 15 to 18 months’ imprisonment for each charge being the appropriate starting point in the circumstances. 

89.  He also submitted that although three offences took place on three different occasions and dates, the additional offences should add little to the culpability of D3 in addition to the commission of the first offence.  He urged this court to give D3 a sentencing discount in view of his guilty plea and also to consider the totality principle.

Discussion

90.  A person convicted upon indictment of this charge is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.  There is no sentencing guideline for theft and each case must be examined on its own facts. 

91.  Sentences imposed in similar cases might not be particularly helpful[1]. This case involves theft offences in the form of shoplifting in supermarkets at different locations of substantial quantities of wine and liquor involving each defendant acting in concert with one or two other persons.  The amount of goods involved in each case ranges from $716 to $8,232.  Subsequent to the commission of these offences, these goods were sold.

92.  All three defendants have numerous similar theft related convictions in the past and they had all been sent to prison for such offences, but the sentence imposed did not deter them from reoffending.

Charge 1

93.  Before sentencing, this court has considered all mitigations, submissions done by defence counsels as well as considering the authorities cited to this court.

94.  For Charge 1, the value of goods in the case is $3,170.  This court will adopt a sentencing starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment. 

95.  D1 is a persistent offender and for such being an aggravating factor, the sentencing starting point is enhanced by 2 months to 8 months’ imprisonment.

96.  Further, D1 had acted together with one other person in commission of this offence.  The sentencing starting point is further enhanced by 1 month to 9 months’ imprisonment. 

97.  D1 has pleaded guilty and therefore entitled to a one-third sentencing discount.  The sentence is reduced to 6 months’ imprisonment.  He has also paid $4,000, out of which $3,170 is applied to cover the cost of these goods covered under this charge.  Accordingly, his sentence is further reduced by 2 months to 4 months’ imprisonment.

98.  However, D1 has committed this Charge 1 offence on the same date as the offence in STCC 1643/2018, another shoplifting case involving 17 bottles of wine for which he was sentenced to 22 weeks’ imprisonment (4 weeks concurrent with another case, STCC 567/2018).  D1 had already served the sentence.  As both offences are of similar nature and they were committed on the same day, having regard to the additional culpability to the commission of the STCC 1643/2018 case, this court orders that the sentence for this charge be reduced to 2 months’ imprisonment.

Charge 2

99.  The value of goods in this case is $2,528. Similarly, a sentencing starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment is adopted. 

100.  D2 again is a persistent offender and for such being an aggravating factor, the sentencing starting point is enhanced by 2 months to 8 months’ imprisonment. 

101.  D2 acted together with two others in the commission of this offence.  The sentencing starting point is further enhanced by 2 months to 10 months’ imprisonment. 

102.  He has pleaded guilty to this charge and is therefore entitled to a one-third sentencing discount.  The sentence is accordingly reduced to 6 months and 20 days’ imprisonment.  He has repaid all loss to the victim and a further discount of 2 months’ imprisonment is afforded to him and accordingly for this offence he is sentenced to 4 months and 20 days’ imprisonment.

Charge 3

103.  The value of goods involved in this case is $2,324.  Similarly, 6 months’ imprisonment as sentencing starting point. 

104.  The same is enhanced by 2 months as D2 is a persistent offender.  He has acted together with one other person in the commission of this offence, the sentencing starting point is therefore enhanced further by 1 month to 9 months’ imprisonment.  D2 has pleaded guilty and is therefore entitled to a one-third sentencing discount bringing the sentence to 6 months’ imprisonment.  He has fully compensated the victims for which his sentence is further reduced by 2 months to 4 months’ imprisonment.

Charge 4

105.  The amount of goods involved in this case is $716.  A sentencing starting point of 5 months is adopted in this case. 

106.  Both D1 and D2 are persistent offenders and therefore the sentencing starting point for both are enhanced by 2 months to 7 months’ imprisonment. 

107.  They committed the offence in concert and therefore the sentencing starting point is enhanced by 1 month to 8 months’ imprisonment.  D1 has committed this offence while he was on bail for a similar offence, for this reason his sentencing starting point is further enhanced by 1 month to 9 months.

108.  As both of them has pleaded guilty to the charge, they are both entitled to a one-third sentencing discount bringing the sentence to 6 months’ imprisonment for D1 and 5 months and 10 days’ imprisonment for D2 respectively.  D2 however has further repaid all loss to the victims for which his sentence is further reduced by 2 months to 3 months and 10 days’ imprisonment. 

109.  Accordingly, D1 is sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment and D2 is sentenced to 3 months and 10 days’ imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 5

110.  The value of the goods in this case is $2,396 and a 6 months’ sentencing starting point is adopted.  The same is enhanced by 2 months as both D1 and D2 are persistent offenders, they acted together in concert in the commission of the offence, therefore the sentencing starting point is enhanced further by 1 month bringing the sentencing starting point to 9 months. 

111.  D1 has further committed this offence while on bail and accordingly his sentencing starting point is further enhanced by 1 month to 10 months’ imprisonment.

112.  Again, they have both pleaded guilty and are therefore entitled to a one-third sentencing discount bringing the sentence for this charge to 6 months and 20 days’ imprisonment for D1 and 6 months’ imprisonment for D2. 

113.  Again, D2 has compensated the victim in full and therefore is entitled to a further 2 months’ sentencing discount bringing the sentence to 4 months’ imprisonment.  Accordingly, D1 is sentenced to 6 months and 20 days’ imprisonment and D2 is sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 6

114.  The amount of goods involved in this case is $8,784.  A sentencing starting point of 7 months’ imprisonment is adopted. Again, the same is enhanced as D1 is a persistent offender by 2 months to 9 months’ imprisonment. 

115.  D1 has acted with another in the commission of this offence and the sentencing starting point is enhanced by 1 month bringing the sentencing starting point to 10 months.  Again, D1 has committed this offence while on bail.  The sentencing starting point is further enhanced by 1 month to 11 months.  D1 is afforded a one-third sentencing discount by reason of his guilty plea, his sentence is therefore reduced to 7 months and 10 days’ imprisonment.

116.  As D1 has decided to apply $4,000 for compensation to the victims, after application of $3,170 to the victim of the 1st charge, the rest, $830, would be applied to the victim of this charge which represents roughly 10 per cent of the victim’s loss.  This would therefore give him a further sentencing discount of 20 days.  I will give him a sentencing discount of 1 month.  Accordingly, D1 is sentenced to 6 months and 10 days.

Charge 7

117.  The value of the goods involved is $5,487.  A sentencing starting point of 6 months is adopted. 

118.  All defendants are persistent offenders and the sentencing starting point is enhanced by 2 months to 8 months’ imprisonment. 

119.  The three of them acted together in the commission of this offence, there was a clear division of labour, anti-theft rings were cut by simple tools to avoid being detected.  There is a certain degree of planning and sophistication in the commission of this offence.  The sentencing starting point is enhanced by 2 months to 10 months’ imprisonment. 

120.  D1 has committed the offence while on bail and the sentencing starting point is therefore enhanced by 1 month to 11 months’ imprisonment.

121.  All defendants pleaded guilty and are therefore entitled to a one-third sentencing discount bringing the sentence for D1 to 7 months and 10 days’ imprisonment and that for D2 and D3 is 6 months and 20 days’ imprisonment.  D2 had further compensated fully to the victim for which he is afforded an extra 2 months’ sentencing discount; his sentence is further reduced to 4 months and 20 days’ imprisonment.

Charge 8

122.  The value of goods involved in this case is $3,587 and 6 months’ imprisonment is the adopted sentencing starting point. Again, the same is enhanced by 2 months as D1 is a persistent offender and an extra month by reason that he committed the offence with another bringing the same to 9 months’ imprisonment. 

123.  D1 has committed the offence whilst he is on bail and the sentencing starting point is enhanced further by 1 month to 10 months’ imprisonment.

124.  By reason of the guilty plea, he is entitled to the one-third full sentencing discount and the sentence is therefore reduced to 6 months and 20 days’ imprisonment.

Charge 9

125.  The value of goods involved is $2,074 and the sentencing starting point of 6 months is adopted.  For the same reasons as in Charge 5, D1 and D2 are both sentenced to 6 months and 20 days’ imprisonment and 4 months’ imprisonment respectively for this offence.

Charge 10

126.  Here, the value of goods involved is $8,232.  A sentencing starting point of 7 months is adopted. 

127.  Again, by reason of D3 being a persistent offender and that he acted together with another in the commission of the offence, the sentencing starting point is enhanced by 2 months and 1 month respectively bringing the same to 10 months’ imprisonment.

128.  D3 has pleaded guilty and is therefore entitled to the full one-third sentencing discount.  Accordingly, he is sentenced to 6 months and 20 days’ imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 11

129.  The value of goods in this case is $3,586 and there was no loss to the victim as the goods are all recovered on the date of the offence. 

130.  A sentencing starting point of 5 months was adopted. 

131.  The same is enhanced by 2 months each by reason of all these three defendants being persistent offenders, the defendants and one other acted in concert in the commission of the offence, there was a clear division of labour and a driver in a vehicle was also employed in the commission of the offence.  There was a higher degree of planning and sophistication in the commission of this offence and the sentencing starting point enhanced further 3 months bringing the sentencing starting point to 10 months’ imprisonment. 

132.  D1 committed the offence whilst on bail.  The sentencing starting point is enhanced in this case by 1 month to 11 months’ imprisonment.

133.  All three defendants are entitled to a full one-third sentencing discount by reason of their guilty plea and accordingly the sentence for D1 in this case is 7 months and 10 days’ imprisonment and that for D2 and D3 is 6 months and 20 days’ imprisonment respectively.

D1

134.  Apart from Charge 1 which occurred in December 2017, the other offences were all committed on different dates (except Charge 7 and Charge 8) within the three months period from 12 September 2018 to 6 December 2018.  Charges 7 and 8 occurred on the same day, half an hour apart D1. 

135.  D1 was convicted of both of these charges.  D1 has been convicted a total of eight charges, seven charges of which was committed whilst he was on bail for a theft offence.  Charge 1 was committed on the same day as the earlier case of STCC 4232/2018 for which he had served sentence.  Charge 7 and Charge 8 offences were, as said earlier, both committed on 19 November 2018.

136.  Considering the totality principle, having regard to the overall culpability of D1 in this case, this court finds that a total sentence of 25 months and 10 days’ imprisonment just and proportionate for the offences.  Accordingly, 3 months of the sentence imposed for each of the Charges 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 1 month of the sentence imposed for Charge 1 and 2 months of the sentence imposed for Charge 7 are to run consecutive to the sentence imposed for Charge 11.  The rest of the sentences shall run concurrent to the sentence for Charge 11.

D2

137.  In the case of D2, D2 has been convicted of seven charges.  The just and proportionate sentence, having regard to his overall culpability in this case, is 21 months and 10 days’ imprisonment. 

138.  Accordingly, 2 months’ sentence imposed on D2 for each of the Charges 3, 4 and 9; 2 months and 20 days’ sentence imposed for Charge 7; and 3 months’ sentence each imposed for Charges 2 and 5 are to run consecutive to the sentence for Charge 11 on D2.  The rest of the sentence shall run concurrently.

D3

139.  D3 has been convicted of three charges.  This court finds a total sentence of 14 months and 20 days’ imprisonment just and proportionate to his overall culpability in the case. 

140.  Accordingly, 4 months’ sentence imposed for each of the Charges 7 and 10 are to run consecutive to the sentence imposed for Charge 11.  The rest of the sentences shall run concurrently. 

141.  As for the $4,000 compensation from D1, I order that $3,170 would be applied as compensation to the victim in Charge 1 and the balance $830 would be applied as compensation towards the victim in Charge 6.