HKSAR v. YEUNG KWOK WING

DCCC 561/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 561 OF 2014

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant in this case, Mr Yeung Kwok-wing, pleaded guilty before me to one count of “Theft”. The offence in question took place on 27 April 2014.

2.  The offence in question concerned the theft of a mobile phone from a Mr Lau, the victim.  The offence took place at about 6 pm on 27 April 2014.

3.  The victim, Mr Lau, was at a crowded street in Sheung Shui with his wife.  Mr Lau kept his mobile phone inside a zipped mobile phone bag which he carried at his right waist.  Mr Lau was suddenly bumped at his right waist and he immediately checked the mobile phone bag.  Upon checking, Mr Lau found that the mobile phone bag was unzipped and the phone was missing.  He shouted immediately. 

4.  Upon hearing Mr Lau’s shout, Mrs Lau noticed two men, later known to be a person known as “Ah Choi” and the defendant, in front of them walking away hurriedly.  Mrs Lau further noticed that the wanted person “Ah Choi” was holding the phone in his left hand but then he quickly passed it to the defendant.  Mrs Lau thus shouted that it was the two men who stole the phone.

5.  Mr and Mrs Lau quickly caught up with the defendant and the wanted person.  Eventually the wanted person managed to escape while the defendant was caught by Mr and Mrs Lau at the scene.  Police officers were alerted and the defendant was arrested.

6.  He told the police under caution that the phone was given to him by “Ah Choi”, he did not personally take the phone with his hands.  He further told the police that he knew “Ah Choi” in a clinic in Sheung Shui that day and he did not have the phone number or address of “Ah Choi”, but he could recognise “Ah Choi” when he see him.

7.  The defendant then gave a description of Ah Choi’s appearance to the police.  He knew that the phone which “Ah Choi” gave him was stolen from the man who reported the case to the police, ie from Mr Lau.

8.  The defendant stole the phone in question jointly with “Ah Choi”. 

9.  The defendant has a total of eight previous convictions recorded against him.  He had one previous conviction for robbery back in 1971.  He was also convicted of blackmail in that year.  Most of his previous convictions were related to dangerous drugs. 

10.  The defendant is now 58 years old.  He was locally born.  I am told that the defendant’s mother is now 90 years old and resides at an old age home.  The defendant is a married man and he resided with his wife and son together before his remand. 

11.  I am told that the defendant’s wife suffers from depression whereas the defendant’s son suffers from some psychiatric illness.  I am told that the household receives $9,970 CSSA per month.  The defendant has been a drug addict for 10 years. 

12.  Mr Si in mitigation told me the defendant met “Ah Choi” on the day in question.  “Ah Choi” promised to buy some dangerous drugs for the defendant if the defendant would help him to steal a mobile phone.  The defendant foolishly agreed to go along with Ah Choi’s suggestion.  He is now extremely remorseful for what he had done, he co-operated with the police after his arrest and he pleaded guilty to the offence in court.

13.  Mr Si submitted that the stolen property was recovered and public time was saved by the guilty plea of the defendant. 

14.  Mr Si submitted the case of HKSAR v Cortes Ramon Miguel HCMA 858/2011.  Mr Si drew my attention to paragraph 14 of the judgment.  Barnes J said at the end of that paragraph that:

“It means the court should have regard to the facts of the case (but not aggravating factors) including the value of the property stolen, the age of the victim and modus operandi, etc. In determining where in the range of 12 to 15 months it should commence, the court should avoid taking into consideration aggravating factors thereby resulting in ‘double counting’.”

15.  There are two aggravating factors in the present case.  Firstly, the defendant committed the offence at a crowded place.  Secondly, the defendant committed the offence jointly with another person, ie “Ah Choi”, who is still at large. 

16.  In determining the starting point for the offence in question, I should not take into account the aforesaid aggravating features. 

17.  On the facts before me, a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment is, in my judgment, appropriate.  The defendant is not a man of clear record, he has in fact a total of eight previous convictions recorded against him, but I would not treat the defendant as a recidivist for the purpose of sentencing. 

18.  As said, I take 12 months’ imprisonment as the starting point.  As the defendant committed the offence in a crowded street, this aggravating feature enhances the starting point by 3 months.  And given the fact that the defendant committed the offence together with another person “Ah Choi”, I further enhance the sentence by another 3 months.   That would bring the sentence of the defendant up to 18 months’ imprisonment. 

19.  The defendant is entitled to the customary one-third reduction for his guilty plea.  The guilty plea of the defendant would bring his sentence down to 12 months’ imprisonment. 

20.  For the reasons given, for the offence of theft in question, I sentence the defendant to 12 months’ imprisonment.