HKSAR v. BAKILA, CAMILO VELOSO AND OTHERS

HCMA 124/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 124 OF 2015

(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC NO 4446 OF 2014)

_______________

_______________

________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
________________________

1.  Both appellants and a third person, D2, appeared before Mr Lam Tsz‑kan, a Deputy Magistrate sitting at Kowloon City Magistracy. All denied a charge of attempted theft (pickpocketing), contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. The two appellants were convicted after a trial but the case against D2 was dismissed. The 2^nd appellant pleaded guilty and admitted the facts of a second offence, namely Breach of a Deportation Order, contrary to section 43(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115.

2.  The 1^st appellant was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment on Charge 1.  The 2^nd appellant was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment on Charge 1 and 18 months on Charge 2.  That 18 months is to be served as 15 months consecutive to the first charge and 3 months concurrent. Therefore in total the 2^nd appellant was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment.  They both appeal now against their respective sentences.

3.  What occurred is as follows.  Police officers saw the 3 men at Tsim Sha Tsui MTR station on 15 December last.  They targeted a victim on the escalator.  The 1^st and 2^nd appellants stood behind him.  On the 2^nd appellant’s instruction the 1^st appellant unzipped the victim’s shoulder bag to try to steal from it.  They followed the victim onto the train but the officers arrested them.  They denied attempting to steal.  Later it was discovered that the 2^nd appellant was in breach of a Deportation Order served on him on 1 August 2012.  He agreed he understood its contents and import.

4.  The 1^st appellant is of hitherto clear record but the 2^nd appellant has a previous conviction for theft dated 1^st September 2011.  He served 20 months imprisonment.

5.  Nothing of note was advanced by way of mitigation before the Magistrate.  Now the 1^st appellant merely expresses a desire for early release to provide for his family as he is the sole breadwinner.  The 2^nd appellant provided me with a written statement of his grounds of appeal.  That simply amounts to a similar plea to the 1^st appellant and reference to injuries he has received in the past unconnected to these matters.  Neither suggested that any of the sentences were too harsh or wrong in principle.

6.  There was absolutely no basis of, nor merit in this appeal against the sentences, imposed on either of the appellants.  If anything the Magistrate was somewhere lenient in allowing a month deduction from the 1^st appellant’s sentence merely on the basis of a clear record and the same can be said for making 3 months of the sentence for the second offence to which the 2^nd appellant pleaded guilty concurrent.  Therefore I dismiss both appeals.