HKSAR v. Maria Maninder Singh and Another

DCCC 747/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 747 OF 2015

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.The defendant has been convicted after trial for one offence of robbery. The victim, PW1, described her bag being stolen by a man, the short man in this case, during the course of which there was a struggle and she fell to the ground and the bag was taken.

2.The items taken are of relatively low value, although the victim was subjected to force.  It seems to be a measure of force just sufficient to relieve her of her possessions.  Also the defence points out that as far as the other man is concerned she gave no evidence of his direct involvement of the application of force upon her.  So the court would be right, she says, in this case not to consider this to be a combination of persons robbing but sentenced as if it was a single robbery, or robbery by a single person. They say that that aggravating factor is not present in this case, or certainly not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

3.Turning to the defendant’s antecedents or background, he is aged 28.  He has secondary school form three education, and was working as a construction site worker when arrested.  He lived with his elder brother at the premises referred to in the court.  He has a number of convictions, starting in 2011, some 5 years ago, when he appears to become involved in drugs but only in a minor way because he was fined $1,000.

4.The serious crime the defendant has involved himself in is burglary.  The two convictions of burglary on 1 February 2013 where he was sentenced to 22 months and 15 days, and for the second one, 24 months, with 10 months and 15 days being consecutive to the earlier burglary. 

5.So the defendant has a record of criminality certainly of a recent time, and also I am told he was released from prison sometime in 2014 - 12 June 2014.  He is in a relationship and I understand his girlfriend is pregnant and will give birth soon.

6.As far as the crime is concerned, in mitigation it is said this is an opportunistic robbery involving of low-value items.  No weapon was used.  The court could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the aggravating factor of a second person being involved is present, and the defendant should be given the benefit of those features of the offence.

7.As far as this case is concerned, it could be classified as an unarmed robbery.  It has been said in relation to unarmed robberies that the most serious form of an unarmed robbery could be subject to sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment after trial for a person of clear record.

8.In sentence, mitigation in this case it cannot be said to fall into the most serious form of unarmed robbery. 

9.I consider that is appropriate for approach to sentence.  This does not fall into the most serious category.  It is of course a serious offence. 

10.Having regard to all the factors that have been put forward, I shall take a sentence of imprisonment for this matter as 3 years’ imprisonment.  The sentence is one of 3 years’ imprisonment.