HKSAR v. ZHOU QINGDONG

DCCC 925/2017

[2018] HKDC 159

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 925 OF 2017

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant, a resident of Mainland China, pleads guilty to one charge of behaving in a disorderly manner on board a non-Hong Kong- controlled aircraft, contrary to sections 12B(3),12B(10) and 21 of the Aviation Security Ordinance[1].

2.  In summary on 27 August last year while travelling from Istanbul to Hong Kong on Turkish Airlines flight TK70 the defendant stole one watch and US$1,000 belonging to Mr Luo another passenger on the plane. 

3.  Mr Luo was sitting in seat 14G whereas the defendant was sitting in seat 33H.  Mr Luo placed in the overhead compartment above his seat his brown suitcase containing his Emporio Armani watch valued at $4,115 and a wallet containing cash.   Mr Luo stayed at his seat to rest and sleep. 

4.  During the flight Mr Wu, who was sitting in seat 31G, was alerted when he saw the defendant take out three suitcases from the overhead compartment for rows 29 and 30.   When Mr Wu pretended to go to the toilet he saw the defendant searching the second suitcase while at the same time looking around.  When the defendant put the second suitcase back in the overhead compartment he opened the third suitcase and put inside a black packet. 

5.  Mr Wu suspected the defendant of stealing and related the matter to a flight attendant.  The matter was reported to the police.  When the plane landed in Hong Kong the police boarded the plane and told the passengers to check their baggage. 

6.  Mr Luo checked his brown suitcase and discovered his watch missing and ten US$100 notes in his wallet had been replaced by ten US$1 notes which did not belong to him.

7.  After Mr Wu had pointed the defendant out to the police, the police searched the defendant’s black suitcase.  Inside the suitcase the police found two black plastic bags.  Inside one bag was twenty-eight US$1 notes and inside the other bag was Mr Luo’s watch and three US$100 notes, which Mr Luo believed were his.   

Mitigation

8.  I have carefully considered the written and oral submissions of Ms Ng together with the mitigation letters written by the defendant and his sister, who is in court today.  I take into account the health of the defendant’s mother and his financial circumstances arising from a failed investment[2].

9.  I take into account the defendant has a clear record however this carries little weight where the defendant is not a resident of Hong Kong. 

10.  I do not agree the offence was committed out of momentary greed[3].  The offence was clearly well planned taking US$1 notes to replace the money stolen thereby making it look as though no money had been stolen. 

11.  I regard this a serious offence.  The defendant took advantage of a passenger who was asleep.  To maintain good order and discipline on an aircraft all travellers on planes must be able to sleep safe in the knowledge their property will not be stolen, in particular on long haul flights where they are more likely to sleep for longer periods. 

12.  Ms Ng refers me to the reasons for sentence in HKSAR v Zuo Guofa where a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment was adopted for stealing RMB 10,000 from the rucksack of a passenger[4].

13.  I am satisfied the present case is more serious.  First, the defendant stole not only money but also a watch and secondly the defendant in covering up his theft replaced the stolen money with other notes to give the appearance no money had been stolen.

14.  The defendant has no objection to the US$300 recovered from his suitcase being returned to Mr Luo.  Ms Ng informs the court that the balance of US$700 can be taken from other monies found on the defendant. 

15.  Apart from the twenty-eight US$1 notes and the three US$100 notes found in the defendant’s suitcase I am informed that another nine US$100 notes were found in the defendant’s wallet and that a further fifty-five US$1 notes were also found[5].  

16.  In the circumstances I order US$700 to be returned to Mr Luo and US$200 to be returned to the defendant.  This means that Mr Luo has suffered no loss, a fact I take into account in passing sentence. 

17.  In all the circumstances I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial is 1 year and 3 months’ imprisonment.  Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is convicted and sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment.  I am satisfied no further discount is to be given by reason of the defendant agreeing to return US$700 to Mr Luo.  The money having been found on the defendant and in the same denomination of the money stolen, this was an order the court could make without agreement from the defendant.