A A
DCCC506/2010
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 506 OF 2010
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v. E
Rizki Pratama
F also known as Wahyu Nandrin F
and Nandrin Wahyu
G G
----------------------
H Before: Deputy District Judge Woodcock H
Date: 15 June 2010 at 12.48 pm
Present: Miss Chan Sze-yan, PP of the Department of Justice,
I for HKSAR I
Mr Wong Chi-kit, Peter, of Messrs Cheung, Chan &
J Chung, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the J
Defendant
K Offence: (1), (3) and (5) Breach of deportation order (違反遞解離 K
境令)
L (2), (4) and (6) Theft (盜竊罪) L
---------------------
M M
Reasons for Sentence
N N
---------------------
O 1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to six charges. O
P 2. Charges 1, 3 and 5 are similar. The defendant has P
pleaded to breaches of a deportation order, contrary to section
Q Q
43(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap.115.
R R
3. Charges 2, 4 and 6, the defendant has pleaded guilty
S to a theft charge, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, S
Cap.210.
T T
4. In relation to Charges 1, 3 and 5, the defendant has
U U
breached a deportation order requiring him to leave Hong Kong on
CRT5/15.6.2010/ML 1 DCCC506/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
2 May 1989 and prohibiting him from being in Hong Kong at any
time thereafter.
B B
C 5. In this case, he has breached this deportation order C
and come back to Hong Kong illegally on three occasions:
D 15 December being the first occasion, 11 January being the D
second occasion, and 24 February being the third occasion.
E E
6. When he arrived on 15 December, he left on 11 January,
F F
only to return on the same day. He then left on 23 January, only
G to return on 24 February. He was then arrested on 17 March, G
having been in Hong Kong since his arrival back on 24 February.
H Since the date of 15 December 2009, he has been in Hong Kong for H
a substantial period of time.
I I
7. Charges 2, 4 and 6 - the theft charges - are on the
J J
facts serious offences.
K K
8. The victim of Charge 2 had exchanged some money in a
L money exchange shop and left the shop with RMB90,000 in a paper L
bag. She walked to her vehicle and put the bag on the front
M passenger seat. When she was about to drive away, she was M
deliberately distracted by one man, whilst a second male opened
N N
her passenger door and stole her money from the seat.
O O
9. CCTV film footage captured the defendant and other
P males following the victim from the money exchange shop to the P
car park.
Q Q
10. The victim of Charge 4 had withdrawn HK$400,000 from a
R R
bank in Kwun Tong. He was headed for lunch when a female
approached him and told him he had ketchup on his shirt and bag,
S S
which he cleaned up. He clearly did not give anyone an
T opportunity to steal his bag of money. He proceeded to the T
restaurant, where he put his bag on the back of his chair and
U had it stolen within minutes. U
CRT5/15.6.2010/ML 2 DCCC506/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
11. CCTV camera footage captured the defendant and other
B B
males following this victim into the bank, as well as later on
C at the restaurant. C
D 12. The victim of Charge 6 had withdrawn HK$300,000 from a D
bank in Telford Plaza. Not long after he had left the bank, he
E E
was approached by someone who told him that his shirt was dirty.
He put his bag down on a flowerbed to clean his garment. He was
F F
then approached by another male, who told him he had dropped
G some money on the floor. He saw two $20 notes and bent to pick G
them up. At that moment, his bag was stolen by this defendant.
H H
13. A passer-by witnessed this crime and chased the
I I
defendant. The defendant was intercepted and the briefcase
recovered.
J J
K
14. Ultimately the money of Charges 2 and 4 has not been K
recovered.
L L
15. The defendant has pleaded guilty today.
M M
16. He has one previous conviction for theft in 1989,
N N
where he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment and then
clearly deported.
O O
P 17. The defendant is an Indonesian national, married with P
four children, their ages ranging from 20 down to 10 years old.
Q He also has to care for an elderly and sick mother. Q
R R
18. I have been told the defendant is a farm labourer in
Indonesia with very little work and income. He has written a
S S
letter of mitigation explaining that his family live in poverty
T and he finds it difficult to feed and clothe them on a day-to- T
day basis.
U U
CRT5/15.6.2010/ML 3 DCCC506/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
19. I have been told it is his desperate financial
situation which caused him to commit these offences.
B B
C 20. I have also been told he came to Hong Kong to look for C
a sister who has been here for about five years, but he was
D unable to locate her. D
E E
21. However, from the dates of these theft offences -
December, January, March - I am more convinced the defendant
F F
came to Hong Kong to commit these offences. Moreover, these
G offences were not spur of the moment offences. G
H 22. The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty H
today.
I I
23. First I will deal with the breach of deportation
J J
order. This offence is a serious offence and punishment; an
K
immediate custodial sentence is appropriate. K
L 24. In recent years sentences have markedly increased. I L
referred myself to the authority of HKSAR v Cortez Emily Bisoy
M [2002] HKLRD 762, where an 18 month sentence after a plea was M
upheld.
N N
25. I have also referred myself to the authority of HKSAR
O O
v Gabriel Malou Lantin, HCMA716/2004. In that authority, a
P starting point of 27 months for a first offender and 30 months P
for a second offence was held to be appropriate.
Q Q
26. In this case, I look at the reason why the defendant
R R
has breached the deportation order and I am sure he came to Hong
Kong to commit these offences and enrich himself and others
S S
illegally.
T T
27. I turn to the theft offences. For offences of this
U nature, there are no guidelines. U
CRT5/15.6.2010/ML 4 DCCC506/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
28. I consider the amount of money lost by the victims
B B
very relevant. The sums are significant.
C C
29. From the facts, it is clear the victims were followed
D and targeted after having withdrawn money or changed money. D
E E
30. The defendant was not acting alone. There were other
offenders involved and they were organised, preying on victims
F F
with substantial cash on their persons. This group were acting
G in concert, each member having pre-assigned roles. G
H 31. All these factors are very relevant to sentence and, H
in my view, aggravating.
I I
32. I have considered the defendant’s mitigation. I am
J J
sure he does have financial difficulty at home. However, his
K
desperate circumstances were the reason he came to Hong Kong and K
they existed before he committed these offences. No mitigation I
L have heard today persuades me to be more lenient. L
M 33. After considering the facts of the case and the M
mitigation put forward, for Charges 1, 3 and 5, the deportation
N N
order offences, for Charge 1, I take a starting point of
2 years’ imprisonment; for Charge 3, I will take a starting
O O
point of 2 years and 6 months; for Charge 5, similarly I take a
P starting point of 2 years and 6 months. P
Q 34. As for the theft offences, for Charge 2, I will take a Q
starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment; Charge 4, I will take a
R R
starting point of 3 years and 6 months; Charge 6, similarly I
take a starting point of 3 years and 6 months.
S S
T 35. The defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third T
for his plea.
U U
CRT5/15.6.2010/ML 5 DCCC506/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
36. Defendant, please stand up.
B B
37. After considering the discount of one-third, for
C Charge 1, you are sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment; for C
Charge 2, you are sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment;
D Charge 3, you are sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment; D
Charge 4, you are sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment;
E E
Charge 5, you are sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment;
Charge 6, you are sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment.
F F
G 38. I have considered the totality principle and the G
timeframe of these offences, and I will order that some of each
H sentence to be served consecutively and the balance H
concurrently.
I I
39. For Charge 2, the 24 months’ sentence imposed,
J J
4 months of that will be served consecutively to Charge 1.
K
Charge 1 is 16 months. K
L 40. For Charge 3, of the 20 months’ sentence imposed, L
4 months will be ordered to be served consecutively to Charges 1
M and 2. M
N N
41. For Charge 4, 28 months’ sentence is imposed, of which
6 months will be ordered to be served consecutively to Charges
O O
1, 2 and 3.
P P
42. For Charge 5, of the 20 months’ sentence imposed,
Q 4 months will be ordered to be served consecutively to Charges Q
1, 2, 3 and 4.
R R
43. For Charge 6, of the 28 months’ sentence imposed,
S S
6 months of that will be ordered to be served consecutively to
T Charges 1 through to 5. T
U U
CRT5/15.6.2010/ML 6 DCCC506/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
44. The balance of those sentences will be ordered to be
served concurrently.
B B
C 45. The defendant is sentenced to a total of 40 months’ C
imprisonment; that is a sentence of 3 years and 4 months.
D D
Court adjourns - 1.17 pm
E E
Court resumes - 4.16 pm
Defendant present. Appearances as before.
F F
46. I must apologise to everybody.
G G
47. The sentence will remain the same. It will be a total
H H
of 3 years and 4 months, but how I reached that total sentence
I has caused some problems. Without going into details, Charge 1, I
being the lowest sentence of 16 months, and parts of other
J sentences being made consecutive to that, has caused calculation J
problems.
K K
48. How I reached that total sentence I will have to
L L
clarify again. In my view I am still functus to do this because
M I have not signed a certificate. M
N 49. I am going to explain to the defendant again how I N
have reached a sentence of 3 years and 4 months.
O O
50. I repeat: Charge 1, the defendant is sentenced to
P P
16 months’ imprisonment; Charge 2, 24 months’ imprisonment;
Q Charge 3, 20 months; Charge 4, 28 months; Charge 5, 20 months; Q
Charge 6, 28 months.
R R
51. And I will repeat again to the defendant that in
S S
reaching this sentence I have already given you a discount of
one-third for your plea.
T T
U 52. Now, I will also repeat that taking into account the U
totality principle, the timeframe of the offences and the nature
CRT5/15.6.2010/ML 7 DCCC506/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
of the six offences, I will make part of the sentences
concurrent and part consecutive.
B B
C 53. Charges 1, 3, 5 and 6 will be ordered to be served C
concurrently.
D D
54. 6 months of the 24 months of Charge 2 will run
E E
consecutively to Charges 1, 3, 5 and 6, the balance
concurrently.
F F
G 55. 6 months of the 28 months imposed for Charge 4 will G
also run consecutively to Charges 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, and the
H balance concurrently. H
I I
56. That means a total of 40 months; a 3 year and 4 month
sentence.
J J
K K
L L
M M
N A. J. Woodcock N
Deputy District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT5/15.6.2010/ML 8 DCCC506/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
DCCC506/2010
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 506 OF 2010
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v. E
Rizki Pratama
F also known as Wahyu Nandrin F
and Nandrin Wahyu
G G
----------------------
H Before: Deputy District Judge Woodcock H
Date: 15 June 2010 at 12.48 pm
Present: Miss Chan Sze-yan, PP of the Department of Justice,
I for HKSAR I
Mr Wong Chi-kit, Peter, of Messrs Cheung, Chan &
J Chung, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the J
Defendant
K Offence: (1), (3) and (5) Breach of deportation order (違反遞解離 K
境令)
L (2), (4) and (6) Theft (盜竊罪) L
---------------------
M M
Reasons for Sentence
N N
---------------------
O 1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to six charges. O
P 2. Charges 1, 3 and 5 are similar. The defendant has P
pleaded to breaches of a deportation order, contrary to section
Q Q
43(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap.115.
R R
3. Charges 2, 4 and 6, the defendant has pleaded guilty
S to a theft charge, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, S
Cap.210.
T T
4. In relation to Charges 1, 3 and 5, the defendant has
U U
breached a deportation order requiring him to leave Hong Kong on
CRT5/15.6.2010/ML 1 DCCC506/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
2 May 1989 and prohibiting him from being in Hong Kong at any
time thereafter.
B B
C 5. In this case, he has breached this deportation order C
and come back to Hong Kong illegally on three occasions:
D 15 December being the first occasion, 11 January being the D
second occasion, and 24 February being the third occasion.
E E
6. When he arrived on 15 December, he left on 11 January,
F F
only to return on the same day. He then left on 23 January, only
G to return on 24 February. He was then arrested on 17 March, G
having been in Hong Kong since his arrival back on 24 February.
H Since the date of 15 December 2009, he has been in Hong Kong for H
a substantial period of time.
I I
7. Charges 2, 4 and 6 - the theft charges - are on the
J J
facts serious offences.
K K
8. The victim of Charge 2 had exchanged some money in a
L money exchange shop and left the shop with RMB90,000 in a paper L
bag. She walked to her vehicle and put the bag on the front
M passenger seat. When she was about to drive away, she was M
deliberately distracted by one man, whilst a second male opened
N N
her passenger door and stole her money from the seat.
O O
9. CCTV film footage captured the defendant and other
P males following the victim from the money exchange shop to the P
car park.
Q Q
10. The victim of Charge 4 had withdrawn HK$400,000 from a
R R
bank in Kwun Tong. He was headed for lunch when a female
approached him and told him he had ketchup on his shirt and bag,
S S
which he cleaned up. He clearly did not give anyone an
T opportunity to steal his bag of money. He proceeded to the T
restaurant, where he put his bag on the back of his chair and
U had it stolen within minutes. U
CRT5/15.6.2010/ML 2 DCCC506/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
11. CCTV camera footage captured the defendant and other
B B
males following this victim into the bank, as well as later on
C at the restaurant. C
D 12. The victim of Charge 6 had withdrawn HK$300,000 from a D
bank in Telford Plaza. Not long after he had left the bank, he
E E
was approached by someone who told him that his shirt was dirty.
He put his bag down on a flowerbed to clean his garment. He was
F F
then approached by another male, who told him he had dropped
G some money on the floor. He saw two $20 notes and bent to pick G
them up. At that moment, his bag was stolen by this defendant.
H H
13. A passer-by witnessed this crime and chased the
I I
defendant. The defendant was intercepted and the briefcase
recovered.
J J
K
14. Ultimately the money of Charges 2 and 4 has not been K
recovered.
L L
15. The defendant has pleaded guilty today.
M M
16. He has one previous conviction for theft in 1989,
N N
where he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment and then
clearly deported.
O O
P 17. The defendant is an Indonesian national, married with P
four children, their ages ranging from 20 down to 10 years old.
Q He also has to care for an elderly and sick mother. Q
R R
18. I have been told the defendant is a farm labourer in
Indonesia with very little work and income. He has written a
S S
letter of mitigation explaining that his family live in poverty
T and he finds it difficult to feed and clothe them on a day-to- T
day basis.
U U
CRT5/15.6.2010/ML 3 DCCC506/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
19. I have been told it is his desperate financial
situation which caused him to commit these offences.
B B
C 20. I have also been told he came to Hong Kong to look for C
a sister who has been here for about five years, but he was
D unable to locate her. D
E E
21. However, from the dates of these theft offences -
December, January, March - I am more convinced the defendant
F F
came to Hong Kong to commit these offences. Moreover, these
G offences were not spur of the moment offences. G
H 22. The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty H
today.
I I
23. First I will deal with the breach of deportation
J J
order. This offence is a serious offence and punishment; an
K
immediate custodial sentence is appropriate. K
L 24. In recent years sentences have markedly increased. I L
referred myself to the authority of HKSAR v Cortez Emily Bisoy
M [2002] HKLRD 762, where an 18 month sentence after a plea was M
upheld.
N N
25. I have also referred myself to the authority of HKSAR
O O
v Gabriel Malou Lantin, HCMA716/2004. In that authority, a
P starting point of 27 months for a first offender and 30 months P
for a second offence was held to be appropriate.
Q Q
26. In this case, I look at the reason why the defendant
R R
has breached the deportation order and I am sure he came to Hong
Kong to commit these offences and enrich himself and others
S S
illegally.
T T
27. I turn to the theft offences. For offences of this
U nature, there are no guidelines. U
CRT5/15.6.2010/ML 4 DCCC506/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
28. I consider the amount of money lost by the victims
B B
very relevant. The sums are significant.
C C
29. From the facts, it is clear the victims were followed
D and targeted after having withdrawn money or changed money. D
E E
30. The defendant was not acting alone. There were other
offenders involved and they were organised, preying on victims
F F
with substantial cash on their persons. This group were acting
G in concert, each member having pre-assigned roles. G
H 31. All these factors are very relevant to sentence and, H
in my view, aggravating.
I I
32. I have considered the defendant’s mitigation. I am
J J
sure he does have financial difficulty at home. However, his
K
desperate circumstances were the reason he came to Hong Kong and K
they existed before he committed these offences. No mitigation I
L have heard today persuades me to be more lenient. L
M 33. After considering the facts of the case and the M
mitigation put forward, for Charges 1, 3 and 5, the deportation
N N
order offences, for Charge 1, I take a starting point of
2 years’ imprisonment; for Charge 3, I will take a starting
O O
point of 2 years and 6 months; for Charge 5, similarly I take a
P starting point of 2 years and 6 months. P
Q 34. As for the theft offences, for Charge 2, I will take a Q
starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment; Charge 4, I will take a
R R
starting point of 3 years and 6 months; Charge 6, similarly I
take a starting point of 3 years and 6 months.
S S
T 35. The defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third T
for his plea.
U U
CRT5/15.6.2010/ML 5 DCCC506/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
36. Defendant, please stand up.
B B
37. After considering the discount of one-third, for
C Charge 1, you are sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment; for C
Charge 2, you are sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment;
D Charge 3, you are sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment; D
Charge 4, you are sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment;
E E
Charge 5, you are sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment;
Charge 6, you are sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment.
F F
G 38. I have considered the totality principle and the G
timeframe of these offences, and I will order that some of each
H sentence to be served consecutively and the balance H
concurrently.
I I
39. For Charge 2, the 24 months’ sentence imposed,
J J
4 months of that will be served consecutively to Charge 1.
K
Charge 1 is 16 months. K
L 40. For Charge 3, of the 20 months’ sentence imposed, L
4 months will be ordered to be served consecutively to Charges 1
M and 2. M
N N
41. For Charge 4, 28 months’ sentence is imposed, of which
6 months will be ordered to be served consecutively to Charges
O O
1, 2 and 3.
P P
42. For Charge 5, of the 20 months’ sentence imposed,
Q 4 months will be ordered to be served consecutively to Charges Q
1, 2, 3 and 4.
R R
43. For Charge 6, of the 28 months’ sentence imposed,
S S
6 months of that will be ordered to be served consecutively to
T Charges 1 through to 5. T
U U
CRT5/15.6.2010/ML 6 DCCC506/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
44. The balance of those sentences will be ordered to be
served concurrently.
B B
C 45. The defendant is sentenced to a total of 40 months’ C
imprisonment; that is a sentence of 3 years and 4 months.
D D
Court adjourns - 1.17 pm
E E
Court resumes - 4.16 pm
Defendant present. Appearances as before.
F F
46. I must apologise to everybody.
G G
47. The sentence will remain the same. It will be a total
H H
of 3 years and 4 months, but how I reached that total sentence
I has caused some problems. Without going into details, Charge 1, I
being the lowest sentence of 16 months, and parts of other
J sentences being made consecutive to that, has caused calculation J
problems.
K K
48. How I reached that total sentence I will have to
L L
clarify again. In my view I am still functus to do this because
M I have not signed a certificate. M
N 49. I am going to explain to the defendant again how I N
have reached a sentence of 3 years and 4 months.
O O
50. I repeat: Charge 1, the defendant is sentenced to
P P
16 months’ imprisonment; Charge 2, 24 months’ imprisonment;
Q Charge 3, 20 months; Charge 4, 28 months; Charge 5, 20 months; Q
Charge 6, 28 months.
R R
51. And I will repeat again to the defendant that in
S S
reaching this sentence I have already given you a discount of
one-third for your plea.
T T
U 52. Now, I will also repeat that taking into account the U
totality principle, the timeframe of the offences and the nature
CRT5/15.6.2010/ML 7 DCCC506/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
of the six offences, I will make part of the sentences
concurrent and part consecutive.
B B
C 53. Charges 1, 3, 5 and 6 will be ordered to be served C
concurrently.
D D
54. 6 months of the 24 months of Charge 2 will run
E E
consecutively to Charges 1, 3, 5 and 6, the balance
concurrently.
F F
G 55. 6 months of the 28 months imposed for Charge 4 will G
also run consecutively to Charges 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, and the
H balance concurrently. H
I I
56. That means a total of 40 months; a 3 year and 4 month
sentence.
J J
K K
L L
M M
N A. J. Woodcock N
Deputy District Judge
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT5/15.6.2010/ML 8 DCCC506/2010/Sentence
V V