HKSAR v. AHMED MUNEEB

DCCC 913/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 913 OF 2016

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to four charges of theft that occurred in about one week in August and September of 2016. He has agreed the facts of the case, and I have convicted him of those offences.

2.  The facts of the case in summary show that the 1st charge was committed on 26 August 2016 at about 4.30 in the afternoon and occurred inside a compartment of a light rail train in Tin Shui Wai in the New Territories in Hong Kong.  The victim was on the train.  When the doors were about to close, the defendant snatched her phone from her hand and ran out of the train compartment. 

3.  Insofar as the 2nd charge is concerned, that concerns a cleaner at a park service block in Tin Shui Wai in the New Territories.  He was the owner of a G-shock watch and he put it on a table inside the staffroom in the service building.  He went off to work at about 11.15 on that day.  When he returned, he could not find his watch.  It appears the defendant had stolen it.

4.  As far as the 3rd charge is concerned, that occurred in the evening of 28 August 2016.  Again the victim was sitting near the door inside the compartment of a light rail train, looking at her mobile phone.  When the train stopped, the defendant snatched her phone from behind and ran out of the train compartment.  He was captured on the CCTV of the station.

5.  Finally, the 4th charge occurred on 1 September 2016 at around 1.20 in the afternoon.  Again it concerned a person inside a compartment of a light rail train in Yuen Long.  The train had stopped, and then the defendant took away the phone from the hand of the victim before running out of the compartment.  In that case, the item taken was the mobile phone which was valued at around $6,000-odd.

6.  Later in the afternoon on 1 September 2016, some police officers saw the defendant who bore a resemblance to the description of the thief, and he was intercepted.  There was a body search.  A key for a locker at the changing room inside the service building in Tin Yip Road where PW2 had been working was found on the defendant.  Defendant was taken to the changing room where PW2 identified the missing watch of the 2nd charge which the defendant was wearing at the time.

7.  The defendant under caution admitted having taken the watch as he had no money and was unemployed.  He also admitted stealing a mobile phone at the Tong Fong Station on the same day.  That is the phone in the 4th charge.  He said that he had discarded that phone near the place of arrest, was willing to help the police to recover it.  Slightly later the same day, the defendant led police to some scrub where the mobile phone belonging to PW4 which was the phone lost in the 4th charge incident was discovered. 

8.  The defendant was subsequently further caution-interviewed.  He admitted again stealing the watch in the changing room of the Tin Yip Road park.  That is the 2nd charge.  He admitted taking the phone in the 4th charge, and he admitted snatching the mobile phones of the first prosecution witness and third prosecution witness in relation to the 1st and 3rd charges.  He said he had sold the stolen mobile phones.  So he had sold the stolen mobile phones stolen from the first witness and the third witness - and those are the phones in Charges 1 and 3 - to unknown second-hand mobile phone buyers and spent the money.  Only $500 was left.  

9.  The defendant’s antecedents are also agreed.  He is only 21 years old.  His place of birth is Pakistan.  He has one previous conviction dating from 2 November 2016 for the offence of making off with payment.  He was fined a thousand dollars and ordered to pay compensation.  He has worked as a delivery man, and his antecedents show he was injured on his left leg and was unemployed before he was arrested for this offence.  He has lived with his parents, sister and two brothers before his arrest.

10.  In the course of mitigation, it transpired the defendant had had what was described as an industrial injury, and that had led to him being unable to continue working, and that had led to him having very little money and in fact leaving home.   

11.  I obtained some reports on the defendant: a background report and also medical reports.  What we can say about his medical condition is that whilst at work, he received a fracture to his left ankle and eventually a surgical correction by way of an arthroscopy.  He has have residual problems from that.  The most recent report from the medical officer at Lai Chi Kok indicates the defendant had sustained injury at work resulting in a fracture to his left ankle.  Various follow-up appointments had been scheduled for him, and I think the present position with the Correctional Services Department is that he is relieved from physical education and drill considered to be unfit for physical education and drill at the institution that he is presently detained at.  It would appear the defendant has some residual problems and will find difficulty in obtaining work that involves strong physical requirements.

12.  The background report sets out what is described as circumstances leading to the present offence.  It indicates the defendant had a full-time job secured since May 2015 and had tried to live a stable working life but was unable to sustain it because of an injury on duty in October 2015.  So without any income, upon exhausting his paid sick leave in July 2016, the accused lacked financial means to support his own living.  To make ends meet, the accused turned to seek financial support from his family but his request was not acceded to.  While the accused is alleged to have sought help from different social service units or agents of placement of temporary shelters in August 2016 for independent living, no placement was readily available.  Feeling helpless and desperate in need of money to support himself, the accused committed the present offence out of greed. 

13.  So the position seems to be in August of 2016, the defendant was unable to work because of his injury, was unable to live at home because of lack of financial support and/or any support from his family and so was living what is described as rough and, in those circumstances, he took what was this method of obtaining some money to carry on his likelihood.

14.  It says that the defendant now understands the seriousness of his present offence and is remorseful, but he does admit having committed the present offence out of what he describes as greed.  It appears now that he does have some family support.

15.  Turning to the question of sentence, the defendant is still a young man.  He is aged only 21.  Clearly, his injury would make him unsuitable for rehabilitative programmes such as the detention centre programme.  So I have to consider what sentence is appropriate. 

16.  Three of the thefts that the defendant has committed are what could be described as snatching offences in the broad sense.  They are thefts but they involve snatching items from the victims. These offences are usually dealt with by the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment.  A first offender who pleads not guilty can expect a sentence ranging between 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment after trial.  

17.  The defendant has in this set of offences committed three of those offences within a fairly short period.  The other offence of theft would appear to be a simple theft involving taking of a watch from a staffroom in a service building.  There is no guideline sentencing for that particular course of theft.

18.  When sentencing the defendant for these offences, there is an aggravating factor and that is that at least three of the offences were committed on the light rail system, and that in my view is a place to which the public will have access in large numbers, and any offence at that location in my view is an aggravating factor or any offence committed there is an aggravating factor of a theft offence.

19.  As far as mitigation is concerned, the defendant is a young man.  He has pleaded guilty.  He had at the time of the offence difficult personal circumstances which he found himself in.  He will have the continuing difficulty of the injury to his left ankle which may restrict the kinds of employment that he can have in the future.

20.  Taking all these factors into consideration, I shall now determine the starting point for sentence in each of these offences. I look now at the snatching offences which are offences 1, 3 and 4.  In this case, I consider that the offences themselves, there should be a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment for the basic offence.  That is aggravated by the commission of these offences in the public light rail system.  On each of Charges 1, 3 and 4, I will adopt a starting point for sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant is entitled to one-third deduction from that for his plea of guilty, and so it will be a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment on Charges 1, 3 and 4.  

21.  As far as Charge 2 is concerned, that is a theft without the aggravating factors of being in a public location such as the light rail system.  I will take a starting point for sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 8 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.

22.  Now I must consider what is the correct overall totality for sentence.  If I add it, they are -- all these sentences are capable of being served consecutively but add them together consecutively would lead to a sentence which would be out of proportion to the criminality of the defendant.  I note the offences were all committed in a fairly short period of time and represent a continuous series of offences over about one week.  

23.  I shall take an overall sentence here of 18 months’ imprisonment.  I shall achieve that by ordering that Charges 1 and 2 be served concurrently to each other, Charges 3 and 4 be served concurrently to each other but 6 months of Charges 3 and 4 be served consecutively to Charges 1 and 2.  That will lead to an overall total sentence for these four offences of 18 months’ imprisonment, and that is the order I shall make.