HKSAR v. WONG CHEUNG WING

DCCC 1076/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1076 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of theft of $360.

2.  The facts that have been admitted by the defendant show that the offence occurred on 12 October 2013.  The defendant was seen by police officers to be wandering in a wet market, and that was the wet market at the junction of Canton Road and Argyle Street, Mong Kok in Kowloon.  The location is described in the facts as being crowded.  The defendant was seen to be carrying a grey recycling bag in his hand, and he was seen to use the grey recycling bag to shield his hand which he placed into the victim’s pocket and then took the $360 from the pocket with his hand.

3.  He was intercepted by the police.  He made an admission under caution that he stole the money because he did not have any money for food.

4.  All that was admitted by the defendant.  I convicted him accordingly on that basis.

5.  The defendant’s antecedents were also admitted. They show he is aged 61 years old.  He was educated only to primary school level.  At the time of his arrest he was unemployed.  He had been released from Hei Ling Chau Correctional Institute on 6 October 2012.

6.  The defendant’s previous convictions record showed that he has a total of 24 previous court appearances.  15 of those convictions are for theft and eight of those are described as being for pickpocketing.  His last four convictions show that in 2008 he was convicted of theft, pickpocketing, and sentenced to 12 months; 2009, sentenced again to theft, described as pickpocketing, and sentenced to 14 months; in 2010, for an offence of theft, sentenced to 18 months; and then in 2012, for an offence of attempted theft, sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment, and being released from that sentence in October of 2012.

7.  And so accordingly, one year later, he is found to be committing the same offence, or the same type of offence, again.

8.  As far as the defendant’s mitigation is concerned, he has written a letter to the court showing his remorse.  At the time of arrest we know that he was on CSSA.  He says it is his intention to retire from Hong Kong and go to China now, and he has assurances that his CSSA money will be paid to him if he retires into China, and after his latest release, I am told that he has been working on construction sites for Gammon and has managed to obtain a construction industry permit.

9.  It is necessary, of course, to determine the appropriate sentence for this defendant.  The offence of which the defendant has been convicted is a theft by means of pickpocketing, and it is common ground that the starting point for sentence alone on that matter would be between 12 and 15 months’ imprisonment.

10.  I must determine where on that scale the defendant’s offence should lie.  The offence committed by the defendant on this occasion is a simple form of pickpocketing.  It does not involve any great planning or complexity of execution.  It could properly be described as opportunistic.  I consider that the appropriate starting point for this element of the sentence is one of 12 months’ imprisonment.

11.  In the circumstances of this case, of course, the sentence is liable for enhancement for two further reasons.  Those are the crowded locus where the offence took place and also the previous criminal record of the defendant.  As far as the crowded locus is concerned, that should be subject to an element of 3 months’ imprisonment.  So the final question to determine is what additional enhancement should be given for the fact of the defendant’s previous poor record.

12.  The defendant is a serial offender, properly described as a recidivist, with historic convictions dating back to 1995.  Also of importance is the fact he has recent convictions, committing offences every year since 2008, except presumably for 2011, when he was incarcerated.  I am also considering the fact that his release from custody in October 2012 from his last sentence of imprisonment can be described as recent.

13.  In all the circumstances, I consider that the additional enhancement due to the defendant’s previous convictions and poor record should be one of 12 months’ imprisonment in this case.  This gives an overall starting point for sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment.

14.  By his plea of guilty the defendant is entitled to a one‑third discount from sentence.  This gives an overall final figure for sentence in this case of 18 months’ imprisonment, and that is the sentence I will impose.