HKSAR v. LAI FU SANG

DCCC 1203/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1203 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance. Those two charges relate to pick-pocketing offences you committed on the 23 and 24 October 2012 at the same location, being ParknShop at Sun Chui Shopping Centre, Sun Chui Estate, Shatin.

2.  The modus operandi of your commission of these offences was the same.  For the first charge, the victim lady had hung her handbag on the shopping cart, it was not zipped up.  When she went to look inside a refrigerator and was not paying attention to her handbag you walked by and took from her handbag her wallet containing the stolen properties in Charge 1.

3.  The very next day you again went to ParknShop and another lady this time hung her bag on a pram, once again, when she was choosing something at the meat section and not paying attention to her bag, you walked by and took her wallet from her bag. 

4.  Neither of these women realised their wallets were stolen until they went to the cashier counter to pay for the goods.  They then reported the incident to the staff of the ParknShop.  The CCTV footage retrieved from ParknShop captured you committing the thefts from these two ladies.

5.  About two days later a police officer noticed that you looked like the culprit as captured in the CCTV footages in respect of the two charges and intercepted you.

6.  Under caution you admitted to committing the two thefts in the ParknShop.  You had spent the stolen cash to buy things and had thrown away the rest of the stolen properties.  None of the stolen properties were recovered.

7.  The total value of stolen property in Charge 1 was about $450, and in Charge 2 was about $650.

8.  Your solicitor, Miss Lee Suk-ping, has mitigated fully on your behalf today and I have taken into account all that she has had to say.

9.  You are 51 years of age, have 11 previous convictions of which 9 are for similar offences of theft. 

10.  Miss Lee has informed me that you have been unemployed since 1993.  You are living on public assistance of $1,900 a month.  You are married although your wife has applied for divorce this month.  You suffer from diabetes as well as nasopharyngeal cancer.  Miss Lee has informed me that you are very remorseful for your crimes.  You hope to turn a new leaf.  As your wife is going to be leaving you, you will be living alone with serious illnesses. 

11.  Miss Lee has rightly referred me to the guideline case of Ngo Van Huy, CACC 107/2004, on pick-pocketing.  She has asked me however to take a lower starting point as there are no particular aggravating factors as said in that case except for your previous convictions.

12.  I accept her mitigation.  Your previous convictions are of course an aggravating factor.  I am informed by the prosecutor that one of the previous convictions was a pick-pocketing, the others are either for shop theft and/or thefts of bread and oranges. 

13.  The present offence of pick-pocketing is a serious one.  You were in my view targeting women who were distracted whilst shopping and deliberately took the opportunity to steal from them when they were not paying attention.  You stole only their wallets from their bags, so very stealthily and accurately without them noticing.

14.  For this pick-pocketing offence, defendant, I take the lower starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment.  In view of your previous similar convictions and the number of convictions, I will increase that starting point by 6 months as I consider that to be an aggravating factor, so the total sentence had I convicted you after trial on each charge would have been 18 months’ imprisonment.  However, you have pleaded guilty to both charges, I give you full credit for your plea of guilty. 

15.  In those circumstances, your sentence shall be reduced to one of 12 months on each charge.

16.  The second charge was a separate and distinct offence committed on the very next day.  I do not consider concurrent sentences for these offences to be appropriate.

17.  In the circumstances, I order 4 months of Charge 2 to run consecutive to Charge 1, making a total period of imprisonment after taking into account the principle of totality to be 16 months’ imprisonment.