|
DCCC 1170/2016
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 1170 OF 2016
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
| Present: |
Mr John Marray, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR |
|
Mr Charles Chan Tak Yan, of Charles Chan & Co, for the defendant |
--------------------------------------
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
--------------------------------------
1. This is a case of pickpocketing. The defendant pleaded guilty before me to one count of theft; the stolen property is an iPhone being valued at $7,000.
2. At about 2:30 in the afternoon of 8 November 2016, the victim, Miss Leung, was with her colleague, Mr Chan, in a shopping mall in Tuen Mun. The defendant bumped into her shoulder from behind and stole her phone which was put in her skirt pocket. Ms Leung realized her phone was missing and immediately challenged the defendant why he had taken her phone, who was standing within a stone’s throw of her.
3. No sooner had the defendant returned the phone to Miss Leung than he took off. Mr Chan gave chase and soon caught him. Police came and arrested the defendant and the defendant confessed to the officer that he had stolen the phone out of greed as he was in need of money.
4. The defendant, aged 50, has amassed 15 previous convictions over the past 21 years, 9 of which are dishonesty offences, 7 of them are pickpocketing.
5. The court was told that the defendant, a married man with 2 grown-up children, has separated from his family since 2013, and now lived in the Yuen Long Park as a tramp with no occupation. He received $1,250 a month as disabled allowances.
6. Counsel for the defendant did not have much to say by way of mitigation except emphasizing that the defendant pleaded guilty in the first opportunity and the stolen iPhone had been returned to the victim before the arrival of the police.
7. There are sentencing guidelines for this type of offence. For a first offender, a term of 12 to 15 months is to be considered. As to where in the normal starting point range of 12 to 15 months a sentencing court should commence, the appellant court in Chiu Suet Yee, Angel, CACC105/2010, has this to say:-
“In our judgment that will depend on the facts of the case, that is, the circumstances of the theft itself, other than those matters which may be accounted for later as aggravating factors. Such matters as the value of the property stolen, the age or vulnerability of the victim and the expertise used in the theft will determine at what part of the range the appropriate starting point commences. Each case will be fact sensitive and considerable allowance should be given to the exercise of the sentencing judge’s discretion.
In selecting an initial starting point within the 12 to 15 months range, the sentencing court will need to avoid double counting, that is taking into account a matter later considered to be an aggravating factor enhancing the starting point of sentence.”
8. The property stolen in the instant case is an iPhone being valued at $7,000, clearly an expensive item. I will adopt 15 months as the starting point (The authority Liu Lin Feng CACC 206/2011 approved the adoption of 15 months for the stealing of an iPhone).
9. And there are other aggravating features in the instant case, that’s the defendant chose to commit the offence in a shopping mall which I believe was a crowded place and judging from his record the defendant is clearly a repeat offender of this type of offence, ie theft.
10. For the former I add 3 months to the starting point; for the latter, I add 9 months that will take the starting point to 27 months.
11. As far as mitigation is concerned, apart from his guilty plea, there is not anything of substance which would justify a further reduction in sentence. I reduce the starting point by one-third to reflect his plea and the defendant is therefore sentenced to a term of 18 months’ imprisonment.
|