HKSAR v. Asim Hafiz Tahir Mahmood

DCCC 352/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 352 OF 2016

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.Asim Hafiz Tahir Mohmood you have pleaded guilty to one charge of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance^[1].

2.In summary around 6:15 p.m. on 10 January this year you went to the “7-Eleven” Convenience Shop on Tai Po Road, Sham Shui Po.  You went behind the working counter of the shop and pointed a six inch folding knife at the safe under the counter, telling the staff to open the safe. 

3.Mr Chak, who was working behind the counter, did not have the key to the safe, and in fear of his safety opened the cash till.  You then grabbed the money in the till, $4,490, and left.  On the way out you also grabbed a roll of stamps,which you dropped as you left the shop. 

4.The robbery was captured on CCTV which I have had the opportunity of viewing.

5.You were arrested by the police on 26 February and later identified by the shop staff as the robber in an identification parade. 

Mitigation

6.In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on your behalf by Mr Parry together with the sentencing cases of other judges in the District Court[2].

7.I am told that you came to Hong Kong illegally in 2007 and now await your claim for asylum to be processed. 

8.Mr Parry says that you have both a drink and drug problem.  This started in 2014 after a good friend of yours was murdered in Pakistan.  Up to that time you had been very religious.  Under the influence of others you turned to drink and drugs for solace. 

9.At the time of the robbery I am told you had been drinking whisky but knew what you were doing at the time.  Having seen the CCTV it is clear you were in the shop looking for the right opportunity to commit the robbery.

Guidelines

10.In R v Mo Kwong Sang ^[3] the Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for armed robberies.  The appropriate sentence for an ordinary case of armed robbery where a knife or other dangerous weapon is carried and displayed is 5 years imprisonment.  

Aggravating feature

11.The Court of Appeal said that where the robbery involves the actual use of violence or the invasion of private premises, which includes domestic and business premises, a higher sentence is appropriate.  I accept, having viewed the CCTV, that in committing the robbery you used no physical violence. 

12.Robbery of a “7-Eleven” shop however is an invasion of business premises.  The sentencing cases submitted by Mr Parry do not with respect consider whether the starting point should be increased by reason of the fact there was an invasion of business premises.

13.In my view staff of convenience shops, particularly those working alone in the early hours of the morning, are vulnerable to this type of robbery and require protection.  You committed the robbery in the early evening when there was more than one member of staff working. 

14.The commission of offences by refugees or torture claimants is capable of aggravating sentence where the offence affects the community at large and has a significant impact on Hong Kong’s reputation (see for example HKSAR v Sandagdorj Altankhuyag & another[4]; HKSAR v Anees Khiyam^[5]and HKSAR v Shah Syed Arif[6]). 

15.I am satisfied robbery, particularly of staff at convenience shops like “7-Eleven” who are vulnerable to robbery, affects the community and reputation of Hong Kong.  In the circumstances taking these aggravating features together, I increase the starting point by 6 months to 5 years and 6 months imprisonment.

16.Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years and 8 months imprisonment.   

[1] Cap 210.

[2] DCCC 25/2013; DCCC 252/2013 and DCCC 424/2015.  Mr Parry also referred to DCCC 547/2009 where I imposed a sentence of 6 years imprisonment for robbery in a beauty salon where the victim was tied with plastic cuffs. 

[3] [1981] HKLR 610.

[4] [2014] 1 HKC 206.

[5] CACC 326/2013.

[6] CACC 298/2015.