HKSAR v. SANDAGDORJ ALTANKHUYAG AND ANOTHER

DCCC 941/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 941 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. The 1st and 2nd defendants, stand up.

2. Both of you have been convicted of stealing a handbag of a young woman who was having a drink with friends at La Dolce Vita 97 bar at No.9 Lan Kwai Fong at around 2 am on 22 September last year.

3. In her handbag were her passport, her Hong Kong identity card, iPhone, credit cards and the money referred to in the charge.

4. Your conviction, 1st defendant, follows your guilty plea.

5. Your conviction, 2nd defendant, follows your trial before this court.

6. It is clear that you both went to Lan Kwai Fong that night looking for potential victims from whom you could steal.

7. Fortunately, you were spotted by an undercover police officer and kept under observation as you walked down Lan Kwai Fong looking into different establishments.

8. Eventually, you, 2nd defendant, indicated the La Dolce Vita 97 bar to the 1st defendant.

9. You, 1st defendant, then went into that bar and sat three seats away from the female victim, whose handbag was on the seat behind her.

10. Having watched her for about two minutes, you then joined the 2nd defendant who had walked further down the street and talked to him.  Presumably then, you were hatching your plan.

11. You then went back to La Dolce Vita 97 bar and put the plan into operation.

12. You, 2nd defendant, stood with your back to the handbag, while you, the 1st defendant, stole it, concealing it underneath the jacket you had over your arm. 

13. You both then left the bar and hurried out of Lan Kwai Fong, where you were stopped by the police.

14. Offences such as this cause great inconvenience to the victim.  The inconvenience is out of proportion to the value of what is stolen.

15. In this case, if your offence had not been detected, the victim would have had to go to the expense and trouble of replacing her passport, her identity card and credit cards.

16. Both of you are visitors to Hong Kong from Mongolia.

17. You, the 2nd defendant, say you have been here for two years and remain here on a recognisance from the Director of Immigration on the basis you are a torture claimant.

18. You, the 1st defendant, crossed the border to enter Hong Kong at 8.36 am the previous evening, about 5½ hours before the offence was committed.

19. There are a number of features that aggravate the offence in both your cases.

20. It was an offence committed at night in a busy entertainment area and major tourist attraction in Hong Kong, where people are enjoying themselves and, therefore, relaxed and maybe less careful about their possessions than would otherwise be the case.

21. From the statistics I have been given completed by the police, Lan Kwai Fong accounts for a significant part of reported theft crime in Central district, an area that extends from Arsenal Street in the east to the vicinity of Macau Ferry Pier in the west and up to the Peak in the south. 

22. In 2012, just over 20 per cent of reported theft crime in Central district occurred in Lan Kwai Fong.

23. Another aggravating feature is the fact that you committed this offence jointly with each other, which makes it easier to avoid detection.

24. Insofar as you are concerned, the 2nd defendant, it cannot be said you entered Hong Kong to commit the theft, as on your own evidence you have been here for two years.

25. There is, however, no official record of your most recent entry into Hong Kong.

26. However, during previous short visits to Hong Kong in 2008, it is apparent you committed three offences of theft, for which you have served terms of imprisonment.

27. As I have said, you, the 1st defendant, entered Hong Kong through Lo Wu about 5½ hours before you committed this offence.

28. I indicated to Mr Ng, your counsel, that I would draw the inference that you had entered Hong Kong to commit theft, unless evidence was called to persuade me to the contrary.

29. I was informed by Mr Ng that you would not give evidence.

30. I am satisfied, bearing in mind these circumstances, that the appropriate starting point in both your cases is

31. You, the 1st defendant, pleaded guilty and are entitled to the usual discount of one-third. 

32. You are, therefore, sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.

33. Insofar as you, the 2nd defendant, are concerned, there are no circumstances that warrant any discount from the starting point I have referred to and, accordingly, you are sentenced to 2½ years; that is, 30 months’ imprisonment.