HKSAR v. CHUCK SZE MING

DCCC 438/2025

[2026] HKDC 272

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 438 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Theft". This is a pickpocketing case which took place in Yuen Long on a Friday morning.

Summary of Facts

2.  About 10:20 a.m. on 22 November 2024, Madam Chong (PW1)  was waiting at a signal-controlled crossing near lamppost No.FB6634, Tai Tong Road, Yuen Long.  She had placed her blue iPhone 13 Pro Max (valued at $9,500)  in her left jacket pocket.

3.  When PW1 was crossing the road, she felt someone (a man approximately 1.7 metres tall, with a thin build and wearing dark-coloured clothes)  bump against her from behind on her left side.  She felt her left jacket pocket lighten and found her iPhone missing.  The police were alerted.  CCTV footage captured the defendant walking behind PW1 and standing behind her waiting at the pedestrian crossing ("the Footage")

4.  About 4:20 p.m. on the same day, PC 12735 (PW2), who had viewed the Footage, stopped the defendant at On Ning Road for enquiry.  Under caution, the defendant admitted having sold PW1's iPhone for $1,000.  PW2 then arrested him for "Pickpocketing".  Under caution, the defendant admitted the offence.

Mitigation & Sentence

5. The defendant is 54 and has 41 conviction records, which included 42 "Theft" offences (3 of which are specified as "pickpocketing"), 3 "Burglary" offences and 1 "Robbery" offence. His latest conviction is dated July 2024. He was sentenced to a total of 27 weeks' imprisonment for 3 "Theft" offences in TMCC 1793/2024 and TMCC 1801/2024. He was released from prison on 20 July 2024.

6. Defence counsel Mr. Wong informed me that the defendant is unemployed and resides alone. In mitigation, Mr. Wong submitted that on that morning, the defendant was on his way to meet a friend. He saw PW1's mobile phone sticking out of her pocket and decided to steal it out of greed. It was not a pre-meditated act of theft.

7.  Time after time, the court has expressed in very clear terms that being in financial difficulty (however serious)  is no mitigating factor for committing a crime. There is sufficient social welfare protection in modern Hong Kong for the poor to meet their basic needs, including food. As a released prisoner, the defendant should have known how to seek help.

8.  The nature of this case appears to be pickpocketing simpliciter; however, the defendant being a persistent offender constitutes an aggravating feature in terms of sentencing. The defendant committed the present offence in just 4 months after being released from prison, which is also an aggravating factor. In HKSAR v Suen Ping[1], Zervos JA held that stealing a mobile phone is an aggravating factor in sentencing for theft-related cases because of the harm caused to the victim due to the loss of personal and vital data and the denial to perform important functions and activities[2]. To be fair to the defendant, based on the Amended Summary of Facts[3], I am unable to discern how crowded the offence location was.

9.  Following the sentencing approach in Suen Ping, I adopt a starting point of 15 months' imprisonment. I will enhance it by 12 months for the defendant's recidivism; 1.5 months for re-offending shortly after prison release; and 3 months for stealing a person's mobile phone. Thus, the starting point becomes 31.5 months. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 21 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 21 months' imprisonment.

10.  The defendant has an appalling criminal record. 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. To live a law-abiding life with dignity or to continue being a criminal is a matter entirely for him.