HKSAR v. YEUNG KAM TUNG

DCCC748/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 748 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  This defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210.

2.  The particulars are that on 14 July this year, in the corridor of the 19th floor of a house in Wah Fu (II) Estate, the defendant stole a smartphone belonging to the victim.

3.  The facts are very straightforward.

4.  The victim was on her way home and was nearly home when she was stopped by the defendant in a corridor of her floor.

5.  The victim was a 21-year-old female and the time was about a quarter to 11 in the evening.

6.  The defendant stopped her and asked her a question, asking her if she knew where somebody, giving a name, lived nearby. She replied that she did not know the answer to his question and suddenly the defendant snatched her phone that she was holding in her hand and fled.

7.  The defendant fled down a rear staircase but before he could leave the building, he was subdued and stopped by the victim’s neighbours.

8.  The police were called and, under caution, the defendant admitted he snatched the victim’s mobile phone.

9.  The mobile phone was recovered but the screen was damaged.

10.  This is essentially a snatching case.  No violence was used against the victim.

11.  The defendant is a 23-year-old man, with many previous similar convictions already.  He has 10 previous convictions, of which nine are theft-related offences.

12.  The defendant has been sentenced to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre on two separate occasions and I suspect that a drug habit has led to the commission of so many offences.

13.  In fact, the defendant was on the same date of this offence released from prison for a theft conviction of Kowloon City Magistracy.  That is an aggravating factor.

14.  I have heard in mitigation that the defendant upon his release that morning was at a loss and had nowhere to go.  It seems that he was unable to return home or to the home of any members of his family, so by late evening he was hungry and desperate and committed this offence.

15.  I have been told the defendant’s background, his education level, and despite being only 23, he no longer has any family support.

16.  Yet, despite the defendant’s previous many convictions, he continues to re-offend.  If the defendant does not change his ways, he will spend his whole life in and out of prison.

17.  The best mitigation today is his plea of guilty. I have looked at the facts of this case, the item snatched, the mitigation put forward, and the fact that the defendant is a persistent offender.  The court is entitled to take this factor into account and increase any starting point I find appropriate.

18.  Generally, offences of this nature would attract a custodial sentence of between 15 and 18 months’ imprisonment.

19.  Because of the factor I find aggravating, I will take for this offence a starting point of 24 months.

20.  The defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third for his plea of guilty today.

21.  The defendant, accordingly, is sentenced to 1 year and 4 months’ imprisonment.

COURT: Understand that sentence?

A. Yes.