HKSAR v. Ng King Him

DCCC 569/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 569 OF 2015

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Robbery". He boarded a taxi in the early hours and robbed the driver of his identification documents and cash in the sum of about $2,100.

Summary of Facts

2.About 1:30 am on 17 April 2015, the defendant boarded a taxi driven by Mr. WAT (PW1) at Tsui Ping North Estate, Kwun Tong.  The defendant sat on the rear left seat and asked PW1 to go to Tsui Ping South Estate.  Upon arrival, the defendant asked PW1 to drive to the top of the hill to wait for another person there.

3.Suddenly, the defendant pointed a cutter towards PW1 with its blade extended and declared "Robbery".  He then stretched his arm forward to the front row and took away PW1's properties as particularized in the Charge including a coin tray and cash in the sum of about $2,100.

4.The defendant fled towards Tseung Kwan O Road and PW1 gave chase.  In the course of his escape, the defendant dropped his cutter and the coin tray.  Upon reaching Tseung Kwan O Road, he ran across the 6-lane carriageway.  PW1 gave up his pursuit and returned to his taxi.  From the rear seat, PW1 found a cell phone left behind by the defendant; it contained a photo of the defendant's Hong Kong Identity Card.  The case was reported to the Police.

5.About 6:20 am on the same day, the defendant was found at the staircase on the 18^th Floor of Tsui Wing House, Tsui Ping South Estate.  Under caution, he said "I used a cutter to rob the taxi driver because I am in need of money".

6.In his video-recorded interview, the defendant admitted the offence in full.  He confirmed having used the cutter retrieved by the Police as well as ownership of the cell phone found in PW1's taxi.  He stored the photo of his Hong Kong Identity Card in his cell phone for the purpose of seeking employment.

Mitigation & Sentence

7.The defendant is 24 and has 2 conviction records (which include 2 "Theft" offences, 3 "Robbery" offences and 1 "Attempted Robbery" offence.  His 1^st conviction is dated April 2007 when he was only 15; a Probation Order was given.  His 2^nd conviction is dated July 2011 when he was 19; a total prison term of 2 years and 8 months was imposed. 

8.Defence counsel Mr. WU informed me that the defendant began to work after completing F.3.  When the present offence took place, the defendant had been out of a job for about 1 month.  He had an outstanding bank debt in the sum of about $100,000, but was too shameful to ask his parents for help.  As a result, he foolishly robbed a taxi driver.  Mr. WU submitted that upon being arrested, the defendant made full and frank admissions.  He was cooperative by taking the Police to his escape route with a view to retrieving PW1's properties (for he had dropped everything along the way since he was too scared).  Unfortunately, nothing was found.  Mr. WU accepted that the defendant had caused PW1 to lose his properties, but the defendant did not retain any.

9.Mr. WU has cited 3 cases[1] on the sentencing of "taxi robbery".  In The Queen v Tran Van Anh [1993] 2 HKCLR 122, the Court of Appeal held "Taxi drivers, as we have frequently observed, are particularly vulnerable to robbery, especially those who ply for hire late at night or in the early hours of the morning or who pick up or drop passengers in quiet locations." [2]

10.Time after time, the court has expressed in very clear terms that being in financial difficulty (however serious) is no mitigating factor for committing a crime.  A clear message must be conveyed to the general public that taxi robbery is a serious offence and that the offenders would most certainly be punished by long-term imprisonment[3]. 

11.In the present case, the defendant acted alone; a cutter was pointed at PW1; none of the stolen properties could be retrieved (albeit dropped by the defendant during his escape); and PW1 lost $2,100 cash and several identification documents. The defendant also has a history of more than a few "Robbery" offences.

12.Having considered all relevant factors, I take the view that the appropriate starting point should be 5.5 years' imprisonment.  A one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 44 months.  Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  I sentence the defendant to 44 months' imprisonment.