HKSAR v. NGUYEN VAN QUANG (also known as NGUYEN CAO QUANG and YUEN MAN KWONG)

DCCC 896/2018

[2019] HKDC 111

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 896 OF 2018

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  In this case the defendant, Nguyen Van Quang, faces one count of theft, an offence commonly known as pickpocketing. He is convicted upon his plea and admission of facts.

2.  On the 27 August 2018, the defendant was seen following a pedestrian in Nam Cheong Street.  After a while he walked closely behind her and opened the buckle of the rucksack the victim was carrying and then took out a cell phone.  He then quickly went back to his bicycle and rode away.  The incident had been under the observation of a police officer and the defendant was arrested shortly afterwards.  The stolen cell phone was found in his pocket.  It was worth $1,300.  Under caution the defendant had admitted to the offence.

3.  This is a pickpocketing case for which there is, as accepted by both prosecution and defence, a sentencing guideline in the judgment of HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1.  For an offence without other aggravating factors, the starting point should be 12 to 15 months.  The Court of Appeal enlisted some aggravating features which would justify the adoption of a higher starting point.  One of the relevant aggravating factors in this case is that the defendant was a repeated offender: the defendant had 33 previous convictions, 21 of which was theft.  In respect of the theft convictions, according to the record, ten of which were pickpocketing.  His last conviction was a pickpocketing offence dated the 12 January 2018.  The present offence was committed on 27 August 2018.  According to the defence counsel, the defendant was released in the early part of August 2018.  From the defendant’s previous convictions I could see that it is justified to consider him a persistent or repeated offender and I also take judicial notice that Nam Cheong Street is a crowded area full of shops, restaurants and pedestrians.

4.  The defendant had committed an earlier offence before casing the victim for at least seven minutes.  The circumstances of the offence justified the adoption of a high end of the starting point, 15 months.  The fact that he is a repeated offender also indicates the necessity of the addition of 9 months.  That the offence was committed in a crowded area would mean an addition of yet another 3 months.  I also take into consideration that the defendant had committed the offence shortly after his release and  would therefore add another 3 months to reflect this aggravating factor.

5.  For the reasons stated, the starting point for the present offence shall be 30 months.  In adopting such a starting point, I bear in mind that the value of the stolen goods was but HK$1,300. However, the value of the property itself pales into insignificance by the need to adopt a sentence order that would have a deterrent effect on the society. We need protection from criminals like the defendant when we go out shopping, relaxing in crowded areas in Hong Kong.

Mitigation

6.  I turn then to consider the mitigation put forward by the defence and also from the background information supplied by the prosecution.  The defendant is 59 years of age.  He has a string of previous convictions.  He is divorced but now has a girlfriend and an eight-year-old child.  All these factors are not relevant consideration by reasons of the matters I have already stated.  The only relevant matter is the fact that he pleaded guilty.  For this I will reduce the 30 months’ imprisonment down to 20 to take effect immediately.