DCCC723/2012 HKSAR v. ARMANI GILBERTO also known as TRISNA DWIKI - LawHero
DCCC723/2012
HKSAR v. ARMANI GILBERTO also known as TRISNA DWIKI
區域法院（刑事）H H Judge Woodcock19/9/2012
DCCC723/2012
A A
DCCC723/2012
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 723 OF 2012
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v. E
Armani Gilberto
F also known as F
Trisna Dwiki
G G
----------------------
H Before: H H Judge Woodcock H
Date: 20 September 2012 at 3.25 pm
Present: Ms Clara Ma, PP of the Department of Justice, for
I HKSAR I
Miss Lee Kit-ying, of Messrs Lau, Chan & Ko, assigned
J by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant J
Offence: (1) to (3) Theft (盜竊罪)
(4) Breach of deportation order (違反遞解離境令)
K K
---------------------
L L
Reasons for Sentence
M --------------------- M
N N
1. Defendant has pleaded guilty to four charges, the
first three being theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft
O O
Ordinance, Cap.210. The 4th charge is a breach of deportation
P order, contrary to section 43(1)(a) of the Immigration P
Ordinance, Cap.115.
Q Q
2. The facts of the case are as follows. The defendant
R is subject to a deportation order issued in February 2005. He R
was last expelled from Hong Kong in July 2011. For the second
S S
time, the defendant entered Hong Kong on 16 March this year
under a different name. Despite him using an alias, he was
T T
again in breach of the 2005 deportation order; hence, Charge 4.
U U
CRT25/20.9.2012/SC 1 DCCC723/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
After he arrived back in Hong Kong, he committed Charges 1, 2
and 3, being arrested in the course of committing Charge 3.
B B
C 3. Charge 1 was a theft committed on 10 May in the lift C
lobby of the Novotel Hotel in Kowloon. The victim of that
D charge left her wallet in her luggage momentarily unattended at D
the lift lobby. The hotel CCTV camera captured the defendant
E E
taking something from her luggage. She then found her wallet
missing from her luggage. She lost cash, bank cards and other
F F
personal items.
G G
4. Charge 2 was committed on 5 July inside the lobby of
H the Imperial Hotel, Kowloon. The victim placed her handbag H
behind her grandmother’s back, presumably for safekeeping, and
I I
momentarily left her bag and her grandmother unattended. The
hotel CCTV camera caught the defendant taking a wallet from her
J J
handbag. In her wallet, she had substantial amount of cash,
K
credit cards that were not recovered. K
L 5. As for Charge 3, the defendant was seen on 10 July in L
Mody Road, looking suspicious, and police officers put him under
M observation. The police followed the defendant into a M
restaurant on the 2nd floor of the Peninsula Centre. Inside the
N N
restaurant, a police officer saw the defendant take a handbag
from a female customer in the restaurant who had placed it
O O
behind her in her seat. The defendant left the restaurant,
P whereupon he was arrested. In that handbag which in itself was P
a valuable bag were two mobile phones, a passport, valuables and
Q a significant amount of cash. Q
R R
6. The defendant after his arrest co-operated with the
police and admitted the 3rd charge as well as the charges
S S
committed earlier, Charges 1 and 2.
T T
7. The defendant is an Indonesian national and now
U 37 years old. He has several convictions in Hong Kong, starting U
CRT25/20.9.2012/SC 2 DCCC723/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
from the year 2004. He has seven previous convictions, four of
which involved offences of dishonesty and two previous
B B
convictions for breaching his deportation order. In this case,
C this is the defendant’s third time he has breached his C
deportation order.
D D
8. I have heard mitigation on behalf of the defendant.
E E
He has a family in Indonesia which includes two young children.
He has breached his deportation order in coming to Hong Kong in
F F
order to commit offences for financial reasons, but his income
G is insufficient to sustain his family and his wife’s medical G
expenses. The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty
H today. H
I I
9. Where Charges 1 to 3 are concerned, I take into
account the defendant obviously targeted victims in busy
J J
locations such as hotel lobbies and restaurants. In places such
K
as these, victims are distracted and their valuables which they K
think are safe become a target for persons such as the
L defendant. The defendant’s actions and the facts of these L
charges are akin to pickpocketing, in my view. Defendant is not
M an opportunistic thief. He is acting professionally. These M
offences deserve immediate custodial sentences.
N N
10. Where a breach of deportation order is concerned, a
O O
first offender would face a starting point of 18 months’
P imprisonment, and I refer myself to two authorities: HKSAR v P
Cortez Emily Bisoy [2002] 2 HKLRD 762 and HKSAR v Pham Van Tuan
Q CACC272 of 2010. As I have said here, this is not the Q
defendant’s first breach but his third breach of a deportation
R R
order.
S S
11. Defendant, please stand up. After considering the
T facts of the case, the seriousness of the offences, particular T
loss suffered by the victims, the defendant’s plea today and
U mitigation put forward, for each charge, 1, 2 and 3, I will take U
CRT25/20.9.2012/SC 3 DCCC723/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment. Defendant is
entitled a discount of 6 month of each charge for his plea of
B B
guilty today. Charges 1, 2 and 3, the defendant is sentenced to
C 12 months’ imprisonment. C
D 12. For Charge 4, I will take, as it is his third breach, D
a starting point of 24 months. The defendant is entitled to a
E E
discount of 8 months for his plea today. Charge 4, the
defendant is sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.
F F
G 13. I have taken into account the totality principle and G
the time between each charge and the totally different nature of
H Charge 4 compared to the other charges. For Charge 2, of the H
12 months’ sentence, 3 months will be consecutive to Charge 1.
I I
Charge 3, of that 12 months, 3 months will also be consecutive
to Charge 1. For Charge 4, of that 16 months’ sentence,
J J
6 months will be consecutive to Charge 1.
K K
14. In total, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’
L imprisonment. Do you understand? L
DEFENDANT: Understand.
M M
N N
O O
A. J. Woodcock
District Judge
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT25/20.9.2012/SC 4 DCCC723/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
DCCC723/2012
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 723 OF 2012
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v. E
Armani Gilberto
F also known as F
Trisna Dwiki
G G
----------------------
H Before: H H Judge Woodcock H
Date: 20 September 2012 at 3.25 pm
Present: Ms Clara Ma, PP of the Department of Justice, for
I HKSAR I
Miss Lee Kit-ying, of Messrs Lau, Chan & Ko, assigned
J by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant J
Offence: (1) to (3) Theft (盜竊罪)
(4) Breach of deportation order (違反遞解離境令)
K K
---------------------
L L
Reasons for Sentence
M --------------------- M
N N
1. Defendant has pleaded guilty to four charges, the
first three being theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft
O O
Ordinance, Cap.210. The 4th charge is a breach of deportation
P order, contrary to section 43(1)(a) of the Immigration P
Ordinance, Cap.115.
Q Q
2. The facts of the case are as follows. The defendant
R is subject to a deportation order issued in February 2005. He R
was last expelled from Hong Kong in July 2011. For the second
S S
time, the defendant entered Hong Kong on 16 March this year
under a different name. Despite him using an alias, he was
T T
again in breach of the 2005 deportation order; hence, Charge 4.
U U
CRT25/20.9.2012/SC 1 DCCC723/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
After he arrived back in Hong Kong, he committed Charges 1, 2
and 3, being arrested in the course of committing Charge 3.
B B
C 3. Charge 1 was a theft committed on 10 May in the lift C
lobby of the Novotel Hotel in Kowloon. The victim of that
D charge left her wallet in her luggage momentarily unattended at D
the lift lobby. The hotel CCTV camera captured the defendant
E E
taking something from her luggage. She then found her wallet
missing from her luggage. She lost cash, bank cards and other
F F
personal items.
G G
4. Charge 2 was committed on 5 July inside the lobby of
H the Imperial Hotel, Kowloon. The victim placed her handbag H
behind her grandmother’s back, presumably for safekeeping, and
I I
momentarily left her bag and her grandmother unattended. The
hotel CCTV camera caught the defendant taking a wallet from her
J J
handbag. In her wallet, she had substantial amount of cash,
K
credit cards that were not recovered. K
L 5. As for Charge 3, the defendant was seen on 10 July in L
Mody Road, looking suspicious, and police officers put him under
M observation. The police followed the defendant into a M
restaurant on the 2nd floor of the Peninsula Centre. Inside the
N N
restaurant, a police officer saw the defendant take a handbag
from a female customer in the restaurant who had placed it
O O
behind her in her seat. The defendant left the restaurant,
P whereupon he was arrested. In that handbag which in itself was P
a valuable bag were two mobile phones, a passport, valuables and
Q a significant amount of cash. Q
R R
6. The defendant after his arrest co-operated with the
police and admitted the 3rd charge as well as the charges
S S
committed earlier, Charges 1 and 2.
T T
7. The defendant is an Indonesian national and now
U 37 years old. He has several convictions in Hong Kong, starting U
CRT25/20.9.2012/SC 2 DCCC723/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
from the year 2004. He has seven previous convictions, four of
which involved offences of dishonesty and two previous
B B
convictions for breaching his deportation order. In this case,
C this is the defendant’s third time he has breached his C
deportation order.
D D
8. I have heard mitigation on behalf of the defendant.
E E
He has a family in Indonesia which includes two young children.
He has breached his deportation order in coming to Hong Kong in
F F
order to commit offences for financial reasons, but his income
G is insufficient to sustain his family and his wife’s medical G
expenses. The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty
H today. H
I I
9. Where Charges 1 to 3 are concerned, I take into
account the defendant obviously targeted victims in busy
J J
locations such as hotel lobbies and restaurants. In places such
K
as these, victims are distracted and their valuables which they K
think are safe become a target for persons such as the
L defendant. The defendant’s actions and the facts of these L
charges are akin to pickpocketing, in my view. Defendant is not
M an opportunistic thief. He is acting professionally. These M
offences deserve immediate custodial sentences.
N N
10. Where a breach of deportation order is concerned, a
O O
first offender would face a starting point of 18 months’
P imprisonment, and I refer myself to two authorities: HKSAR v P
Cortez Emily Bisoy [2002] 2 HKLRD 762 and HKSAR v Pham Van Tuan
Q CACC272 of 2010. As I have said here, this is not the Q
defendant’s first breach but his third breach of a deportation
R R
order.
S S
11. Defendant, please stand up. After considering the
T facts of the case, the seriousness of the offences, particular T
loss suffered by the victims, the defendant’s plea today and
U mitigation put forward, for each charge, 1, 2 and 3, I will take U
CRT25/20.9.2012/SC 3 DCCC723/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment. Defendant is
entitled a discount of 6 month of each charge for his plea of
B B
guilty today. Charges 1, 2 and 3, the defendant is sentenced to
C 12 months’ imprisonment. C
D 12. For Charge 4, I will take, as it is his third breach, D
a starting point of 24 months. The defendant is entitled to a
E E
discount of 8 months for his plea today. Charge 4, the
defendant is sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.
F F
G 13. I have taken into account the totality principle and G
the time between each charge and the totally different nature of
H Charge 4 compared to the other charges. For Charge 2, of the H
12 months’ sentence, 3 months will be consecutive to Charge 1.
I I
Charge 3, of that 12 months, 3 months will also be consecutive
to Charge 1. For Charge 4, of that 16 months’ sentence,
J J
6 months will be consecutive to Charge 1.
K K
14. In total, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’
L imprisonment. Do you understand? L
DEFENDANT: Understand.
M M
N N
O O
A. J. Woodcock
District Judge
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
CRT25/20.9.2012/SC 4 DCCC723/2012/Sentence
V V