HKSAR v. NGUYEN MINH TUYET

 DCCC1128/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1128 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to three offences, he has accepted the facts and I have convicted him of those offences. The offences are theft, remaining in Hong Kong, and breach of a deportation order.

2.  The facts establish that on 12 September 2009 the defendant stole a mobile phone from a young lady by snatching it from her hand. The defendant was intercepted eventually and admitted the offence. The value of the phone was $2,000.

3.  The investigation of the defendant established that he was an illegal immigrant into Hong Kong, that he had entered Hong Kong on 12 September 2009. The defendant was also found to be the subject of a Deportation Order issued on 27 July 1993.

4.  Those facts establish the offences of which I convicted the defendant.

5.  The defendant was in Hong Kong illegally at the time of his arrest so he was unemployed, and in his antecedent statement he said that he was a drug addict.

6.  The defendant has a number of previous convictions. He has five previous convictions for remaining in Hong Kong and seven previous convictions for breach of Deportation Order. The defendant was most recently sentenced for those offences in 2005 when he received a sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment, both for breach of the Deportation or the Expulsion Order and for remaining in Hong Kong. The total overall sentence for those offences was 33 months’ imprisonment.

7.  The defendant has returned again illegally in breach of his Deportation Order and this time has committed an offence of theft.

8.  By way of mitigation, it has been advanced that the defendant is a drug addict. All his income is spent on drugs. He came to Hong Kong, he says, to get away from the drug environment in Vietnam, and he sees that he may have an opportunity to be treated in Hong Kong. The defendant has a wife and two children in Vietnam.

9.  In determining the sentence for these offences I have to bear in mind that the defendant is a repeated offender in respect of illegal entries and the breach of his Deportation Explusion Order, and also the offence of theft that he committed in this case is by way of snatching the phone from the young lady’s hand.

10.  The sentences I will impose will be as follows.

11.  On the first charge, I take a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment. I reduce that to 12 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty.

12.  On the second charge I will impose the sentence that has most commonly been imposed recently on the defendant for remaining in Hong Kong, and that is after deduction of plea of guilty, a sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment.

13.  As far as the third charge is concerned, which involves the breach of the Deportation Order, as the defendant of course is again a repeat offender, I shall take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment. I will reduce that to 2 years’ imprisonment or 24 months’ imprisonment on the third charge.

14.  I must achieve a correct overall totality of sentence by adjustments in respect of how they are to be served concurrently or consecutively.

15.  I have decided the correct overall total of the sentence should be 42 months’ imprisonment on this occasion.

16.  I shall order that Charges 1 and 2 be served consecutively to on another. I shall order that 9 months of Charge 3 be served consecutively to 1 and 2 and the balance of that offence be served concurrently. That will achieve an overall sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment.