HKSAR v. PANG MING PING AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 534 of 1997

_________________

_________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

1. These three defendants all appeal against their convictions on a charge of Attempted Theft. They were all convicted in the Magistracy. Basically, they challenge now the prosecution evidence but the Magistrate had the advantage of hearing the police witnesses who observed the defendants for lengthy period and who also watched them slash the bag of passer-by in search of property.

2. In this enterprise, the three Defendants were described as acting in concert and the officers described how that had been done. All three Defendants complained about the fact that the razor blade the subject of a charge of Going Equipped for Stealing, for which the 1st Defendant was additionally convicted, could not have been in the 1st Defendant's jacket pocket because that pocket was sewn up and, further, that the razor blade was planted on the 1st Defendant's person at the police station. These allegations were made in the evidence given by the Defendants and also put to the officers in cross-examination.

3. I have today examined the jacket and note that the pocket on the upper left side has been sewn over at the top whether because it is a false pocket or because it is a method for protecting the shape of the pocket is immaterial. It is also clear that the razor blade which was allegedly found, could quite comfortably have fitted in the flap of that pocket and been hidden by it, and that it would not have been noticeable to anybody looking at the person wearing the jacket.

4. I considered the Magistrate's Statement of Findings and looked at the evidence in this case. There was ample evidence before the magistrate on which he could find the Defendants guilty of the Attempted Theft and the 1st Defendant additionally guilty of the charge of Going Equipped for Stealing. There is nothing which indicates that this conviction was unsafe or unsatisfactory and the appeals of the Defendants against conviction are dismissed.

Appeal against Sentence

5. The Appellants appeal against sentences of 18 months for this offence of Attempted Theft. In respect of that offence, it is quite clear that the Magistrate took into account the fact that this was an organised criminal enterprise, that each defendant had a role to play and that a razor was to be used. The guidelines for professional pickpockets acting in concert with others, is in the region of 2½ years on the basis of Nguyen Piran Linh CA No. 454/1989. On that basis a sentence of 18 months is proper in respect of the 1st charge. A proper sentence was imposed in respect of the 2nd charge faced by the 1st Defendant. A sentence of up to 6 months imprisonment for that offence would be proper. In this case, a sentence of 3 months was imposed and it was ordered that the sentence was to run concurrently with that for the Attempted Theft. I see no reason to disturb any of the sentences. The appeals against sentence are dismissed.