HKSAR v. LOONG KWOK KUEN

DCCC369/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 369 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of theft. One is a substantive theft. The other is an attempt theft. The first offence was committed on 27 February in Dundas Street, Mongkok; and the second offence, attempted theft, was committed some few days on 2 March.

2.  The defendant was observed by police officers at 9.30 on 27 February 2011 on Dundas Street.  He was keeping observations on the handbags of passers-by.  The officer followed the defendant and outside a snack shop on Dundas Street, the defendant stopped behind the first victim, a 17-year-old Form 5 student.  The officer observed the defendant putting his right hand into the right pocket of the victim’s jacket, and a short while later, he removed the mobile phone from there.  He was stopped and arrested, and under caution, he told the officer that he had stolen the phone out of momentary greed.  The phone was valued at $3,250.

3.  Surprisingly, given the defendant’s poor record, he was released on bail.  A few days later, on 2 March, at 5.35, the defendant was again seen in the Mongkok area, this time on Nelson Street.  He was acting furtively.  A police officer followed him.  The defendant went to the Mongkok MTR Station where he was seen staring at people’s handbags at the concourse. He was observed to follow another female student, this time a 22-year-old university student who was going up the escalator at exit D of the MTR station.  He stood one step below the student.  He put his right hand into the right-side pocket of the victim, attempting to take out her mobile phone.  The officer grabbed hold of the defendant’s hand, and the phone dropped back into the victim’s pocket.  The defendant said he had no alternatives, so he stole the phone.  The phone was valued at $2,000.

4.  The defendant has a number of previous convictions.  He has appeared before courts on 15 previous occasions. 6 occasions were for theft; 2 for attempted theft; and in 2007, he was sent to prison for 28 month for burglary.  He went to prison again in September 2009 for matters related to obscene articles.  I understand he was released from prison in February 2010.

5.  The defendant is 29 years of age and previously worked as a decoration worker.  He came to Hong Kong in 1991.  He lives with his mother and was educated to Form 3 level.  His mother is now 60 and does odd jobs in restaurants.  His father died five years ago.

6.  I am told by counsel representing the defendant that the defendant lost his job in December 2010 because his employer’s contract was terminated and all the employees had to be laid off.  And counsel on instructions has tried to persuade the court that this was an opportunistic theft.  I was told that on the day of the offence, the defendant had gone to Tsim Sha Tsui in order to apply for a job working in a restaurant.  I am told that he decided not to accept that job because the hours required him to work from 3 pm to 3 am.  I am told that he later went with some friends to the Mongkok area for something to eat, and it was on the spur of the moment that he saw the victim with her mobile phone clearly on display, and he was tempted.

7.  In relation to both offences, counsel has urged upon the court that these particular areas, although they are busy places, were not as busy as they might be at other times of the day.  I am told that in 2007, the defendant became a Christian and he hoped to reform.

8.  These are serious offences committed in very busy areas of Hong Kong.  The defendant has a bad record.  The starting point for an offence of pickpocketing is a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment.  The Court of Appeal have said that where people are caught committing offences of this kind and they have bad records that the sentence should be increased because, clearly, the usual sentences do not deter some defendants.

9.  I propose to increase the defendant’s sentence by 9 months to reflect his bad record.  Both offences were committed in crowded areas, and I propose to increase the starting point by 3 months to reflect that aggravating feature of the case.  So the starting point for each of these offences would be a sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment.  The only real mitigating factor in this case is that the defendant has pleaded guilty, and for that, I am prepared to reduce his sentence by the usual one-third.  So the sentence for each offence will be 18 months.

10.  I now have to consider the question of totality.  The second offence was committed whilst the defendant was on bail for the first offence and, usually, that requires that the sentences should run consecutively.  Having considered all the circumstances, however, what I propose to do in this case is to order that 9 months of the sentence for Charge 2 should run consecutive to the sentence for Charge 1.

11.  The defendant will therefore go to prison for a total period of 27 months.