HKSAR v. TSUI CHIU KWAI

DCCC965/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 965 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of theft, occurring on 6 August this year in Cheung Wong Road in Mong Kok. He stole $380.

2.  The defendant has agreed the facts.

3.  These showed the offence occurred at around about 5.40 pm on 6 August 2011. Police officers were patrolling in the area of Cheung Wong Road Market in Mong Kok. The market was crowded. The defendant was seen to pay attention to handbags and purses of people shopping in the market, so he was kept under observation.

4.  Shortly after, the defendant was seen inserting his fingers into the right trousers pocket of a 73-year-old lady.  She was shopping in the market also.  He took banknotes from her pocket (it was a total of $380), put that into his own trousers pocket and walked away.

5.  He was intercepted by the police.  The money was retrieved from his pocket.  Eventually, apparently, the money was returned to the victim.

6.  The defendant later admitted the offence of theft in a record of interview.

7.  Based on those facts, I convicted the defendant.

8.  The defendant admitted his antecedents.

9.  He is a 49-year-old man, educated to Primary 6. He was intermittently working as a decoration worker.  He says he is a drug addict.  He was last released from prison on 15 June 2011.

10.  The defendant has a poor record of previous convictions.  He has a total of 30 recorded previous convictions. 

11.  I am told by the prosecution that six of those were pickpocketing offences.  In fact, about 21 of them relate to theft.

12.  Some are specifically defined as being pickpocketing offences and those show that the defendant was committing offences of that nature from 1999 onwards.  Then, he received a sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment.

13.  By the year 2002 he had received a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment for theft, and then,

1) for theft defined as pickpocketing in 2003, 10 months’ imprisonment;

2) a further 10 months’ imprisonment in 2005;

3) in 2007, 12 months’ imprisonment;

4) and then in 2008 for an offence specifically recorded as Theft (Pickpocket), 18 months’ imprisonment;

5) and in 2010, again for the same offence, 18 months’ imprisonment.

14.  The record would appear to show the defendant is a professional pickpocket.

15.  He is also obviously a drug addict.  There are a number of convictions for possession of dangerous drugs and also attendance at Drug Addiction Treatment Centres on more than one occasion.

16.  So, the defendant is a professional pickpocket, with increasingly lengthier sentences, culminating in 2010 with the sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment from the District Court for Theft (Pickpocketing).

17.  In mitigation I was additionally told that the defendant is married.  His wife works as a salesperson.  He has two children currently in secondary school in Aberdeen.  He has no steady employment.

18.  In respect of the offence itself, it is conceded properly that the offence was committed in a crowded area and shows signs, due to the defendant’s criminal record, of being a professional style offence.

19.  One also notes the defendant in mitigation acted alone, using no sophisticated methods; it was a crude form of pickpocketing.

20.  The amount taken was small:  $380.

21.  There are clear guidelines how I should approach this offence.

22.  The identifiable aggravating factors would be the defendant’s criminal record and also the fact that this is done in a crowded shopping area in Mong Kok.  The sentencing range for Theft (Pickpocket) offences ranges between 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment.

23.  I consider the starting point should be 15 months’ imprisonment in respect of that particular aspect of sentencing.

24.  The defendant has a poor criminal record for these offences.  The two most recent sentences of 18 months’ imprisonment did not appear to deter the defendant from continuing this form of offending.

25.  I consider an additional sentence, a period of 12 months’ imprisonment, should be accorded to this aggravating factor.

26.  The crowded area where the defendant committed the offence should also lead to a further 3 months’ imprisonment be allocated to this aggravating factor.

27.  The total sentence attributed to the aggravating factors is thus 15 months’ imprisonment, which is added to the starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment, to give an overall starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment.

28.  The defendant is entitled to one-third discount from that sentence, which leads to a final sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment.