Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

HKSAR v. TSOGOO, Ariunsaikhan

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Magistrate lawfully adopted a 12-month starting point for pickpocketing, applied a one-third guilty-plea discount and further mitigation for remorse and remand, producing a 7-month sentence which falls within the appropriate range given aggravating factors (vulnerable victim and multiple offenders); the sentence is not excessive and the appeal is dismissed.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Sentence of 7 months imprisonment affirmed

02

Material facts

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent Counsel: Ms Cecilia S W Chan, SPP, Department of Justice

Tsogoo Ariunsaikhan

Appellant Counsel: Appellant in person

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence Months: 7

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal From Magistrates' Court (magistracy Appeal No. 332 of 2011) / Judgment on Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Appellant (17, visitor, first offender) said sentence excessive, pleaded guilty, expressed remorse and suffered injury on remand; sought greater reduction.
Respondent
Prosecution submitted starting point for pickpocketing is 12-15 months, aggravating factors (vulnerable victim, multiple offenders) justified low end start; guilty plea and remorse discounts already applied and sentence is not excessive.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Court of Appeal authority cited in judgment and local sentencing practice

    Starting point for first-offender pickpocketing after trial is typically 12-15 months

  2. 02

    Established sentencing principle applied by the Magistrate and endorsed by court

    Guilty plea attracts a one-third discount from sentence if entered before trial

  3. 03

    Applied by Deputy High Court Judge with reference to case law

    Sentencing must account for vulnerability of victim and number of offenders as aggravating factors

  4. 04

    Applied by Deputy High Court Judge; illustrated by comparison with HKSAR v Nankinga [2010] 3 HKC 255

    Personal mitigation such as youth, first-offender status and remorse may reduce sentence but not necessarily below appropriate range after starting point and aggravation

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Magistrate lawfully adopted a 12-month starting point for pickpocketing, applied a one-third guilty-plea discount and further mitigation for remorse and remand, producing a 7-month sentence which falls within the appropriate range given aggravating factors (vulnerable victim and multiple offenders); the sentence is not excessive and the appeal is dismissed.

Obiter and limits

  • Comparison made to HKSAR v Nankinga [2010] 3 HKC 255 where an 8-month sentence was imposed in similar factual circumstances
  • Judge noted that visitor/first-offender status and youth are mitigating but did not warrant further reduction beyond mitigations applied

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Sentence of 7 months imprisonment affirmed

Source and reliance status

Court of First Instance · 8 June 2011

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court of First Instance

Judgment· 8 June 2011

HKSAR v. TSOGOO, Ariunsaikhan

bjbj 07O )/ HCMA 332/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 332 OF 2011 (ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 713/2011) ____

BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and TSOGOO, Ariunsaikhan (D1) Appellant ____ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Stuart-Moore Date of Hearing: 8 June 2011 Date of Judgment: 8 June 2011 ___

J U D G M E N T ___ On 6 April 2011, the appellant, Tsogoo Ariunsaikhan, aged 17, received a sentence of 7 months imprisonment for the theft of a Blackberry mobile telephone imposed by Miss Kennis Tai sitting as a Deputy Magistrate in the Eastern Magistrates Court. The appellant now appeals against that sentence. In short, this was a pickpocketing case in which the appellant stole the telephone from a female victim who appeared to be the worse for wear from drink. The appellant was working in concert with a man (D2), to whom she passed the item which he then hid in his trousers. This all happened on 19 February 2011. The appellant, who was a visitor from Mongolia, had arrived only the day before in Hong Kong. From this, it is obvious that she is a first offender in Hong Kong. She claimed after her arrest to be very remorseful about what she had done. The Magistrate was fully aware of the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1 and she went on to consider also what was said by Mackintosh J in HKSAR v Nankinga [2010] 3 HKC 255. This was a case not unlike the present one where a 25 year old appellant stole from an apparently drunken man who was in fact a police officer posing as a tourist who was drunk. The sentence for the theft in that case was 8 months imprisonment. The usual sentence, as a starting point after trial in

pickpocketing cases, is 12 to 15 months for a first offender where there are no factors which aggravate the offence. The Magistrate was entitled to have taken, in the particular circumstances of this case, a starting point of 12 months imprisonment. The Magistrate then discounted this for the guilty plea by a full one-third and took off a further month because the appellant had been extremely remorseful and indeed had caused injuries to herself during the period she was on remand. Ms Cecilia Chan rightly pointed out on behalf of the Respondent that, as this offence was committed by more than one offender on a victim who was vulnerable to such a crime, the starting point was already at the lowest end of the spectrum so that the sentence of 7 months was in no sense excessive. There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. (M Stuart-Moore) Deputy High Court Judge Ms Cecilia S W Chan, SPP of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent The Appellant in person

PAGE - 1udk 1udk h{2q

O

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T U V [Content_Types].xml Iw}, $yi} _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml w toc'v )I`n 3Vq%'#q x}r :\TZaG I u3 L+M2 e\O* $*c? )6-r IqbJ#x ,AGm T[XF64 E)`# R>QD =(K& =al- 4vfa 0%M0 theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> ,wC=

GEKD ,wC= setup hcma.dot setup Microsoft Office Word Judiciary Hong Kong Title [ )/ Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

HKSAR v Ngo Van Huy [2005] 2 HKLRD 1

Case cited

HKSAR v Nankinga [2010] 3 HKC 255

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.