DCCC519/2025 HKSAR v. FIRDAUS ALAMSA AND OTHERS - LawHero
DCCC519/2025
District CourtDeputy District Judge May Chung14/10/2025[2025] HKDC 1764
DCCC519/2025
A A
B B
DCCC 519/2025
C [2025] HKDC 1764 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 519 OF 2025
F F
---------------------------
G G
HKSAR
H v H
FIRDAUS ALAMSA (D1)
I I
AGGINA APRILIA (D2)
J J
JAROT FITER (D3)
K
---------------------------- K
L Before: Deputy District Judge May Chung L
Date: 15 October 2025
M M
Present: Mr Alexander Cheung, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
N Mr Kevin Steel, solicitor of Robertsons, assigned by DLA, N
for D1
O O
Ms Jacqueline Lam, instructed by Mohnani & Associates,
P assigned by DLA, for D2 P
Mr Simon N.M. Young, instructed by Francis Kong & Co.,
Q Q
assigned by DLA, for D3
R Offences: [1] Theft R
[2] Breach of Deportation Order
S S
-----------------------------------------
T REASONS FOR SENTENCE T
-----------------------------------------
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. D1, D2 and D3 are jointly charged with one count of theft of
C 200,000 Japanese Yen (equivalent to around HKD 10,000) on 19 Nov 2024, C
contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210 (Charge 1). D1 is
D D
further charged with one count of breach of deportation order, contrary to
E section 43(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (Charge 2). All E
three defendants pleaded guilty to the charges they faced.
F F
G Facts G
H H
2. The three defendants are Indonesians holding Indonesian
I passports. I
J J
3. A deportation order dated 27 January 1994 was issued to D1
K according to which D1 was required to leave Hong Kong and was K
prohibited from being in Hong Kong at any time thereafter. Pursuant to the
L L
said deportation order, D1 was deported to Jakarta on 18 February 1994.
M The deportation order remains in force and has never been rescinded. M
N N
4. D1, D2 and D3 entered Hong Kong via the airport on 18
O November 2024. O
P P
5. At around 3:25 p.m. on 19 November 2024, the victim of
Q Charge 1 (a Ms Lam, “PW1”) walked to a cake shop in North Point (“the Q
Cake Shop”) to purchase some bread, carrying with her 200,000 Japanese
R R
Yen inside an envelope in her bag (being the Stolen Property of Charge 1)
S after having withdrawn the money from the bank earlier that day. The S
CCTV in the vicinity captured the three defendants tailing PW1 from the
T T
pedestrian crossing at North Point Road to the Cake Shop. At the material
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
time, the Cake Shop was crowded. The CCTV inside the Cake Shop
C captured the commission of Charge 1. At the time, D2 pickpocketed PW1 C
while she was paying for her bread at the cashier; D1 was wandering inside
D D
the Cake Shop to act as a lookout while D3 stayed close to D2 the whole
E time; PW1 felt that D2 had touched her. The three defendants left the Cake E
Shop shortly afterwards. When PW1 tried to take out her wallet, she
F F
discovered that the zipper of the front pocket of her crossbody bag was
G open and the Stolen Property was missing. PW1 reported the case to the G
police.
H H
I 6. On 26 Nov 2024, the three defendants were arrested in North I
Point.
J J
K 7. Under caution, K
L L
(1) D1 admitted, inter alia, that he had become acquainted
M with D2 and D3 four months prior to that in Jakarta and M
they had come to Hong Kong together on 18 November
N N
2024; they had stayed together in a rented flat in Mong
O Kok; they had been captured by the CCTV in the Cake O
Shop on 19 November 2024.
P P
Q (2) D2 admitted, inter alia, that she had come to Hong Q
Kong together with D1 and D3 on 18 November 2024
R R
and they had lived together during their stay in Hong
S Kong. S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
(3) D3 admitted, inter alia, that he had come to HK
C together with D1 and D3 on 18 November 2024 and C
they had lived together during their stay in Hong Kong;
D D
they had been captured by the CCTV in the Cake Shop
E on 19 November 2024. E
F F
8. The three defendants agree that at the material time at the
G Cake Shop they stole 200,000 Japanese Yen belonging to PW1. D1 agrees G
that at the material time, in Hong Kong, he, being a person in respect of
H H
whom a deportation order was in force, was in Hong Kong in contravention
I of the said order. I
J J
Background and mitigation
K K
D1
L L
M 9. D1 is aged 59. He is married with 2 children, aged 21 and 23. M
He suffers from stomach ulcers and hypertension and is being treated with
N N
medication. He was sentenced to 5 months’ imprisonment for theft from a
O vehicle in 1993; upon his release he was deported from Hong Kong. O
P P
10. The defence agrees that during the commission of Charge 1,
Q D1 was in close proximity to D2 and D3 inside the Cake Shop where D2 Q
took the money (which had been placed in an envelope) from the victim’s
R R
bag. The defence asks the court to consider that under caution, D1 stated
S that he had come to Hong Kong with D2 and D3 for the purpose of S
shopping. As to Charge 2, it is admitted that D1 had arrived in Hong Kong
T T
from Indonesia on 18 November 2024 and at the time he was still under
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
the conditions of the deportation order issued in 1994; D1 had used another
C name to enter Hong Kong. C
D D
11. The defence refers to the case of HKSAR v Pham Bich Thuy
E [2010] 2 HKLRD 1177 and submits that 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment is E
appropriate after trial for a first time offender of pickpocketing (Charge 1).
F F
As to Charge 2, the defence refers to HKSAR v Cortez Emily Bisoy [2002]
G 2 HKLRD 762 and submits that for a charge of breach of a deportation G
order, a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment after plea is appropriate.
H H
I 12. The defence submits that D1 pleaded guilty at the earliest I
opportunity and should be given 1/3 discount. The defence accepts that
J J
Charge 1 and Charge 2 are distinct offences and thereby it would not be
K expected for the sentences to run concurrently; however, Charge 2 K
concerns a deportation order issued over 30 years ago with no
L L
transgressions during that period, and this should be taken into account
M when considering totality. The defence further submits that there is M
insufficient evidence in this case to support a finding that D1 came to Hong
N N
Kong to commit the offence of Charge 1; nor has the prosecution presented
O their case on this basis. However, D1 accepts that there is an “international O
element” regarding Charge 1 as the three defendants committed the offence
P P
the very next day after their arrival in Hong Kong from Indonesia.
Q Q
D2
R R
S 13. D2 is aged 37. She attained Primary 6 education level in S
Indonesia and has been unemployed since 2019. D2 was separated from
T T
her former husband in 2019. Prior to her arrest in Hong Kong, she was
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
living with her child who is currently aged 2 in Indonesia. She has a clear
C record and has been detained since her arrest on 26 November 2024. She C
asks for leniency in her mitigation letter.
D D
E 14. Defence counsel submits that it is well established that the E
sentencing guideline for theft by pickpocketing is 12 to 15 months’
F F
imprisonment after trial for a first-time offender, citing HKSAR v Ngo Van
G Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1. Defence counsel further submits aggravating G
features include whether the offence was committed in a crowded place
H H
and whether the offence was committed jointly with others; and the Court
I of Appeal has particularly made an observation in respect of pickpockets I
from overseas (whether individually or in a group) who come to Hong
J J
Kong to carry out this type of activity. Defence counsel also refers to
K HKSAR v Chiu Suet Yee, Angel CACC 105/2010 regarding the factors to K
consider when determining the starting point.
L L
M 15. Defence counsel submits that D2 appreciates the gravity of M
the present offence which warrants an immediate custodial sentence; the
N N
defence also agrees this case has several aggravating features, including (1)
O the offence location being a crowded place, (2) the offence being O
committed jointly by D1-3, and (3) all three defendants having arrived in
P P
Hong Kong from Indonesia the day before the offence. However, this case
Q did not involve any use of weapon; nor was the offence committed in Q
conjunction with another offence. Moreover, no injury or threat was caused
R R
to the victim. The defence asks the Court to consider D2’s timely plea,
S which shows her remorse. It is submitted that D2 has learned a bitter lesson; S
she has missed her father’s funeral in Indonesia due to her being on remand.
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
D2 asks for leniency and has written a mitigation letter expressing her
C remorse. C
D D3 D
E E
16. D3 is 45 years old. He was born in Indonesia and has lived
F there his whole life. He has attained a Form 3 education level. He is married F
with three children: two girls now aged 18 and 12, and a son aged 9. His
G G
wife works at home and looks after the family. D3 is the sole breadwinner.
H He has worked as a salesman selling clothing in Indonesia. As his family H
depends on him financially, D3 is anxious to return to Indonesia as soon as
I I
possible. He has no criminal record in Indonesia and is of clear record in
J Hong Kong. This was his first time visiting Hong Kong. He asks for J
leniency in his mitigation letter.
K K
L 17. The defence submits that no incriminating evidence was L
found during the search of the defendants’ flat after their arrest. According
M M
to D3’s instructions, he was not aware of a plan to come to Hong Kong to
N N
commit crimes. He came with the other defendants for tourism. However,
O
after the theft took place, he agreed to deal with the property as owner, and O
he pleaded guilty on this basis.
P P
Q 18. Defence counsel for D3 also cites Ngo Van Huy and Chiu Suet Q
Yee, Angel. It is submitted that the circumstances of the theft were
R R
unsophisticated, involving a single momentary act of taking an envelope
S of banknotes from PW1’s crossbody bag; the value of the banknotes was S
around HKD 10,000; no violence or threat of violence was involved; PW1
T T
was not a person of vulnerability; and the offence did not involve an
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
irreplaceable item or mobile phone. Thus, the defence is of the view that
C 12 to 13 months’ imprisonment should be adopted as the starting point. C
D D
19. The defence acknowledges that the case has the aggravating
E features of (1) having occurred in a crowded place, (2) having been E
committed in conjunction with others, and (3) having an international
F F
element. Taking into account the relevant aggravating factors, it is
G submitted that an increase of 9 to 10 months’ imprisonment from the initial G
starting point would be appropriate. The defence refers to the case of
H H
HKSAR v Indra Irawan CACC 80/2014 and submits that the present case
I bears a strong resemblance to the circumstances therein. I
J J
Sentence
K K
20. I bear in mind that D2 and D3 are of clear record. D1’s
L L
criminal record was in 1993; I shall not take into account this record in
M sentencing him. I have considered the mitigation submissions of the M
defendants, the facts of the case, and the relevant authorities. I am of the
N N
view that the culpabilities of the three defendants as to Charge 1 are the
O same. O
P P
Charge 1 (for all three defendants)
Q Q
21. As accepted by the defence, the starting point for a first
R R
offender of pickpocketing should be 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment. I am
S of the view that the appropriate starting point for this case is 12 months’ S
imprisonment given that the value of the stolen property was not
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
particularly high, PW1 was not a “vulnerable” victim, and the theft was not
C a sophisticated one: see Chiu Suet Yee, Angel. C
D D
22. As to aggravating factors, all of the defendants agree that
E these three factors are present in this case: (1) the theft was committed in a E
crowded/busy shop and area of Hong Kong; (2) the defendants acted
F F
jointly and in concert in committing the offence; (3) the defendants had
G entered Hong Kong only one day before the offence was committed (and G
as such there is an “international element” to the commission thereof).
H H
Regarding factor (3), I refer to the case of HKSAR v Tan Hong Sheng
I CACC 238/2005, wherein the Court of Appeal stated that: I
J “26. The fact that the applicant and his co-accused committed the offence the J
very next day after they arrived in Hong Kong from the Mainland, contrary to
K K
the applicant’s submission, is indeed a most serious aggravating factor as rightly
identified by the judge."
L L
M 23. I am of the view that for each of the three aggravating factors M
set out hereinabove, 3 months enhancement of sentence is appropriate, i.e.,
N N
the sentence is thus enhanced by 9 months, to one of 21 months’
O imprisonment. O
P P
24. The defendants shall receive 1/3 discount in light of their
Q Q
guilty pleas. I do not see any other reason to further reduce the sentence for
R
any of the defendants. Thus, the sentence for Charge 1 for all three R
defendants is 14 months’ imprisonment.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
Charge 2 (for D1)
C C
25. In light of the relevant authorities (including HKSAR v Ta
D Dinh Son CACC 348/2013), the appropriate starting point should be 27 D
months’ imprisonment. Due to D1’s guilty plea, this is reduced to 18
E E
months’ imprisonment. I do not see any other reason to further reduce the
F sentence. Thus, D1’s sentence for Charge 2 is 18 months’ imprisonment. F
G G
Totality (D1)
H H
26. Although Charges 1 and 2 are different in nature, in light of
I I
the totality principle, I order 10 months of D1’s sentence for Charge 2 to
J be consecutive (in other words, 8 months to be concurrent) to his sentence J
for Charge 1. D1 is thus sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.
K K
L Conclusion L
M M
27. D1 is sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment. D2 is sentenced
N
to 14 months’ imprisonment. D3 is sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment. N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
( May Chung )
S Deputy District Judge S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 519/2025
C [2025] HKDC 1764 C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 519 OF 2025
F F
---------------------------
G G
HKSAR
H v H
FIRDAUS ALAMSA (D1)
I I
AGGINA APRILIA (D2)
J J
JAROT FITER (D3)
K
---------------------------- K
L Before: Deputy District Judge May Chung L
Date: 15 October 2025
M M
Present: Mr Alexander Cheung, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
N Mr Kevin Steel, solicitor of Robertsons, assigned by DLA, N
for D1
O O
Ms Jacqueline Lam, instructed by Mohnani & Associates,
P assigned by DLA, for D2 P
Mr Simon N.M. Young, instructed by Francis Kong & Co.,
Q Q
assigned by DLA, for D3
R Offences: [1] Theft R
[2] Breach of Deportation Order
S S
-----------------------------------------
T REASONS FOR SENTENCE T
-----------------------------------------
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. D1, D2 and D3 are jointly charged with one count of theft of
C 200,000 Japanese Yen (equivalent to around HKD 10,000) on 19 Nov 2024, C
contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210 (Charge 1). D1 is
D D
further charged with one count of breach of deportation order, contrary to
E section 43(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (Charge 2). All E
three defendants pleaded guilty to the charges they faced.
F F
G Facts G
H H
2. The three defendants are Indonesians holding Indonesian
I passports. I
J J
3. A deportation order dated 27 January 1994 was issued to D1
K according to which D1 was required to leave Hong Kong and was K
prohibited from being in Hong Kong at any time thereafter. Pursuant to the
L L
said deportation order, D1 was deported to Jakarta on 18 February 1994.
M The deportation order remains in force and has never been rescinded. M
N N
4. D1, D2 and D3 entered Hong Kong via the airport on 18
O November 2024. O
P P
5. At around 3:25 p.m. on 19 November 2024, the victim of
Q Charge 1 (a Ms Lam, “PW1”) walked to a cake shop in North Point (“the Q
Cake Shop”) to purchase some bread, carrying with her 200,000 Japanese
R R
Yen inside an envelope in her bag (being the Stolen Property of Charge 1)
S after having withdrawn the money from the bank earlier that day. The S
CCTV in the vicinity captured the three defendants tailing PW1 from the
T T
pedestrian crossing at North Point Road to the Cake Shop. At the material
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
time, the Cake Shop was crowded. The CCTV inside the Cake Shop
C captured the commission of Charge 1. At the time, D2 pickpocketed PW1 C
while she was paying for her bread at the cashier; D1 was wandering inside
D D
the Cake Shop to act as a lookout while D3 stayed close to D2 the whole
E time; PW1 felt that D2 had touched her. The three defendants left the Cake E
Shop shortly afterwards. When PW1 tried to take out her wallet, she
F F
discovered that the zipper of the front pocket of her crossbody bag was
G open and the Stolen Property was missing. PW1 reported the case to the G
police.
H H
I 6. On 26 Nov 2024, the three defendants were arrested in North I
Point.
J J
K 7. Under caution, K
L L
(1) D1 admitted, inter alia, that he had become acquainted
M with D2 and D3 four months prior to that in Jakarta and M
they had come to Hong Kong together on 18 November
N N
2024; they had stayed together in a rented flat in Mong
O Kok; they had been captured by the CCTV in the Cake O
Shop on 19 November 2024.
P P
Q (2) D2 admitted, inter alia, that she had come to Hong Q
Kong together with D1 and D3 on 18 November 2024
R R
and they had lived together during their stay in Hong
S Kong. S
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
(3) D3 admitted, inter alia, that he had come to HK
C together with D1 and D3 on 18 November 2024 and C
they had lived together during their stay in Hong Kong;
D D
they had been captured by the CCTV in the Cake Shop
E on 19 November 2024. E
F F
8. The three defendants agree that at the material time at the
G Cake Shop they stole 200,000 Japanese Yen belonging to PW1. D1 agrees G
that at the material time, in Hong Kong, he, being a person in respect of
H H
whom a deportation order was in force, was in Hong Kong in contravention
I of the said order. I
J J
Background and mitigation
K K
D1
L L
M 9. D1 is aged 59. He is married with 2 children, aged 21 and 23. M
He suffers from stomach ulcers and hypertension and is being treated with
N N
medication. He was sentenced to 5 months’ imprisonment for theft from a
O vehicle in 1993; upon his release he was deported from Hong Kong. O
P P
10. The defence agrees that during the commission of Charge 1,
Q D1 was in close proximity to D2 and D3 inside the Cake Shop where D2 Q
took the money (which had been placed in an envelope) from the victim’s
R R
bag. The defence asks the court to consider that under caution, D1 stated
S that he had come to Hong Kong with D2 and D3 for the purpose of S
shopping. As to Charge 2, it is admitted that D1 had arrived in Hong Kong
T T
from Indonesia on 18 November 2024 and at the time he was still under
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
the conditions of the deportation order issued in 1994; D1 had used another
C name to enter Hong Kong. C
D D
11. The defence refers to the case of HKSAR v Pham Bich Thuy
E [2010] 2 HKLRD 1177 and submits that 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment is E
appropriate after trial for a first time offender of pickpocketing (Charge 1).
F F
As to Charge 2, the defence refers to HKSAR v Cortez Emily Bisoy [2002]
G 2 HKLRD 762 and submits that for a charge of breach of a deportation G
order, a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment after plea is appropriate.
H H
I 12. The defence submits that D1 pleaded guilty at the earliest I
opportunity and should be given 1/3 discount. The defence accepts that
J J
Charge 1 and Charge 2 are distinct offences and thereby it would not be
K expected for the sentences to run concurrently; however, Charge 2 K
concerns a deportation order issued over 30 years ago with no
L L
transgressions during that period, and this should be taken into account
M when considering totality. The defence further submits that there is M
insufficient evidence in this case to support a finding that D1 came to Hong
N N
Kong to commit the offence of Charge 1; nor has the prosecution presented
O their case on this basis. However, D1 accepts that there is an “international O
element” regarding Charge 1 as the three defendants committed the offence
P P
the very next day after their arrival in Hong Kong from Indonesia.
Q Q
D2
R R
S 13. D2 is aged 37. She attained Primary 6 education level in S
Indonesia and has been unemployed since 2019. D2 was separated from
T T
her former husband in 2019. Prior to her arrest in Hong Kong, she was
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
living with her child who is currently aged 2 in Indonesia. She has a clear
C record and has been detained since her arrest on 26 November 2024. She C
asks for leniency in her mitigation letter.
D D
E 14. Defence counsel submits that it is well established that the E
sentencing guideline for theft by pickpocketing is 12 to 15 months’
F F
imprisonment after trial for a first-time offender, citing HKSAR v Ngo Van
G Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1. Defence counsel further submits aggravating G
features include whether the offence was committed in a crowded place
H H
and whether the offence was committed jointly with others; and the Court
I of Appeal has particularly made an observation in respect of pickpockets I
from overseas (whether individually or in a group) who come to Hong
J J
Kong to carry out this type of activity. Defence counsel also refers to
K HKSAR v Chiu Suet Yee, Angel CACC 105/2010 regarding the factors to K
consider when determining the starting point.
L L
M 15. Defence counsel submits that D2 appreciates the gravity of M
the present offence which warrants an immediate custodial sentence; the
N N
defence also agrees this case has several aggravating features, including (1)
O the offence location being a crowded place, (2) the offence being O
committed jointly by D1-3, and (3) all three defendants having arrived in
P P
Hong Kong from Indonesia the day before the offence. However, this case
Q did not involve any use of weapon; nor was the offence committed in Q
conjunction with another offence. Moreover, no injury or threat was caused
R R
to the victim. The defence asks the Court to consider D2’s timely plea,
S which shows her remorse. It is submitted that D2 has learned a bitter lesson; S
she has missed her father’s funeral in Indonesia due to her being on remand.
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
D2 asks for leniency and has written a mitigation letter expressing her
C remorse. C
D D3 D
E E
16. D3 is 45 years old. He was born in Indonesia and has lived
F there his whole life. He has attained a Form 3 education level. He is married F
with three children: two girls now aged 18 and 12, and a son aged 9. His
G G
wife works at home and looks after the family. D3 is the sole breadwinner.
H He has worked as a salesman selling clothing in Indonesia. As his family H
depends on him financially, D3 is anxious to return to Indonesia as soon as
I I
possible. He has no criminal record in Indonesia and is of clear record in
J Hong Kong. This was his first time visiting Hong Kong. He asks for J
leniency in his mitigation letter.
K K
L 17. The defence submits that no incriminating evidence was L
found during the search of the defendants’ flat after their arrest. According
M M
to D3’s instructions, he was not aware of a plan to come to Hong Kong to
N N
commit crimes. He came with the other defendants for tourism. However,
O
after the theft took place, he agreed to deal with the property as owner, and O
he pleaded guilty on this basis.
P P
Q 18. Defence counsel for D3 also cites Ngo Van Huy and Chiu Suet Q
Yee, Angel. It is submitted that the circumstances of the theft were
R R
unsophisticated, involving a single momentary act of taking an envelope
S of banknotes from PW1’s crossbody bag; the value of the banknotes was S
around HKD 10,000; no violence or threat of violence was involved; PW1
T T
was not a person of vulnerability; and the offence did not involve an
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
irreplaceable item or mobile phone. Thus, the defence is of the view that
C 12 to 13 months’ imprisonment should be adopted as the starting point. C
D D
19. The defence acknowledges that the case has the aggravating
E features of (1) having occurred in a crowded place, (2) having been E
committed in conjunction with others, and (3) having an international
F F
element. Taking into account the relevant aggravating factors, it is
G submitted that an increase of 9 to 10 months’ imprisonment from the initial G
starting point would be appropriate. The defence refers to the case of
H H
HKSAR v Indra Irawan CACC 80/2014 and submits that the present case
I bears a strong resemblance to the circumstances therein. I
J J
Sentence
K K
20. I bear in mind that D2 and D3 are of clear record. D1’s
L L
criminal record was in 1993; I shall not take into account this record in
M sentencing him. I have considered the mitigation submissions of the M
defendants, the facts of the case, and the relevant authorities. I am of the
N N
view that the culpabilities of the three defendants as to Charge 1 are the
O same. O
P P
Charge 1 (for all three defendants)
Q Q
21. As accepted by the defence, the starting point for a first
R R
offender of pickpocketing should be 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment. I am
S of the view that the appropriate starting point for this case is 12 months’ S
imprisonment given that the value of the stolen property was not
T T
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B B
particularly high, PW1 was not a “vulnerable” victim, and the theft was not
C a sophisticated one: see Chiu Suet Yee, Angel. C
D D
22. As to aggravating factors, all of the defendants agree that
E these three factors are present in this case: (1) the theft was committed in a E
crowded/busy shop and area of Hong Kong; (2) the defendants acted
F F
jointly and in concert in committing the offence; (3) the defendants had
G entered Hong Kong only one day before the offence was committed (and G
as such there is an “international element” to the commission thereof).
H H
Regarding factor (3), I refer to the case of HKSAR v Tan Hong Sheng
I CACC 238/2005, wherein the Court of Appeal stated that: I
J “26. The fact that the applicant and his co-accused committed the offence the J
very next day after they arrived in Hong Kong from the Mainland, contrary to
K K
the applicant’s submission, is indeed a most serious aggravating factor as rightly
identified by the judge."
L L
M 23. I am of the view that for each of the three aggravating factors M
set out hereinabove, 3 months enhancement of sentence is appropriate, i.e.,
N N
the sentence is thus enhanced by 9 months, to one of 21 months’
O imprisonment. O
P P
24. The defendants shall receive 1/3 discount in light of their
Q Q
guilty pleas. I do not see any other reason to further reduce the sentence for
R
any of the defendants. Thus, the sentence for Charge 1 for all three R
defendants is 14 months’ imprisonment.
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 10 -
A A
B B
Charge 2 (for D1)
C C
25. In light of the relevant authorities (including HKSAR v Ta
D Dinh Son CACC 348/2013), the appropriate starting point should be 27 D
months’ imprisonment. Due to D1’s guilty plea, this is reduced to 18
E E
months’ imprisonment. I do not see any other reason to further reduce the
F sentence. Thus, D1’s sentence for Charge 2 is 18 months’ imprisonment. F
G G
Totality (D1)
H H
26. Although Charges 1 and 2 are different in nature, in light of
I I
the totality principle, I order 10 months of D1’s sentence for Charge 2 to
J be consecutive (in other words, 8 months to be concurrent) to his sentence J
for Charge 1. D1 is thus sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment.
K K
L Conclusion L
M M
27. D1 is sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment. D2 is sentenced
N
to 14 months’ imprisonment. D3 is sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment. N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
( May Chung )
S Deputy District Judge S
T T
U U
V V