HKSAR v. Cheung Chun Hong

DCCC 628/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 628 OF 2016

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Robbery". He and another person robbed a male of his waist bag which contained cash in a sum of $200,500. Something was sprayed into the victim's eyes in the course of the robbery.

Summary of Facts

2.On 28 July 2015, Mr. TSANG (PW1) was instructed by his employer to purchase 130 sets of iPhone (of different models).  He was given cash in the sum of $903,450.

3.About 5:00 p.m. on the same day, PW1 went to the wholesaler located at the 2^nd Floor, Everest Industrial Centre, Kwun Tong to purchase the iPhones according to instructions.  After making the purchase, PW1 placed the unused cash (in the sum of $200,500) into a red recycle bag and then placed the recycle bag into his waist bag ("the Waist Bag").

4.When PW1 was loading the iPhones onto his trolleys near the 2^nd Floor lift lobby, he placed the Waist Bag on the floor near him.  Soon, PW1 saw the defendant (who was wearing a surgical mask) walking towards and yelling at him.  Suddenly, someone sprayed something on PW1's face from behind, causing pain in his eyes.  PW1 turned around and saw the defendant holding a can of spray together with a male named CHIK, who was also wearing a surgical mask.

5.When PW1 was struggling with the defendant, CHIK went to get the 2 trolleys of iPhones, but the trolleys tipped over.  CHIK then picked up the Waist Bag from the floor and ran.

6.CHIK and the defendant fled to a staircase of the building and PW1 gave chase.  When almost reaching the Ground Floor exit, CHIK fell on the stairs and dropped the Waist Bag.  Both CHIK and the defendant left the building without picking up the Waist Bag.  PW1 stopped his pursuit and was able to retrieve the Waist Bag and all the iPhones. His glasses and the Waist Bag were damaged during the struggle with the defendant.

7.CHIK's left palm print was lifted from the fire door (surface facing the lift lobby) of the No.3 staircase of the building.

8.About 2:35 p.m. on 6 May 2016, PC 12746 stopped the defendant for enquiry at Tseung Tau Tsuen.  He did not have his HKID card with him, so he was brought back to Tuen Mun Police Station.  After investigation, it was discovered that the defendant was one of the culprits who robbed PW1 on 28 July 2015.

9.In his video recorded interview, the defendant made detailed admissions regarding his role in the robbery.  In gist, he was recruited by CHIK to spray something at someone. CHIK gave the defendant a surgical mask and a bottle of irritant spray.  The defendant also described the respective roles played by him and CHIK in the robbery.  Still photos of the CCTV footage of the robbery as well as the CCTV footage itself were shown to the defendant.  He confirmed he was depicted in the footage.

Mitigation & Sentence

10.The defendant is 17 and has a clear record.  Defence solicitor Mr. KWOK informed me that the defendant resides with his parents and elder sister.  He used to be a casual warehouse worker earning $500 per day.  He was unemployed at the time of the offence. 

11.In mitigation, Mr. KWOK submitted that the defendant is remorseful and has been cooperative with the Police throughout.  He did not know PW1, and does not know if CHIK knew PW1. Mr. KWOK stressed that PW1 suffered no loss.  The culprits did not take away any iPhone or the Waist Bag containing cash.  A letter written by the defendant's social worker was placed before me; its contents are duly noted.

12. According to the Court of Appeal's decision in HKSAR v ON Ling CACC 386/2004, the present case should not be regarded as an armed robbery; the sentencing guidelines stipulated in MO Kwong-sang v The Queen [1981] HKLR 610 are thus not appropriate. On the other hand, the defendant acted in concert with CHIK with a plan (however primitive it was as suggested by Mr. KWOK) to rob PW1. PW1 was sprayed at his eyes and the purpose of the attack was clearly to immobilize him. I am aware of the Court of Appeal's decision in HKSAR v TING Chiu & another [2003] 3 HKLRD 378 on the sentencing of unarmed robberies.

13. I have borne in mind the length of the prison term the defendant is likely to receive had he been over 21. At the same time, I cannot overlook his age and his need for rehabilitation. I have reminded myself that correctional institutions such as Rehabilitation Centres and Training Centres exist for the benefit of young offenders. These institutions play an important role in our penal system.

14. Prosecuting counsel Mr. CHAU informed me that CHIK was charged separately with an offence of "Robbery" in DCCC 137/2016. He has pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced by another judge in April this year. With the consent of Mr. KWOK, Mr. CHAU handed me a copy of the Reasons for Sentence regarding CHIK. In short, CHIK was 20; had 2 conviction records which involved 2 violence-related offences; and had been to a Rehabilitation Centre. For the present robbery, the learned judge sent him to a Training Centre.

15. The defendant's pre-sentencing report reveals that he is mentally and physically fit for detention in a Rehabilitation Centre or a Training Centre. The officer who wrote the report considers Rehabilitation Centre more suitable for the defendant. I would not hide the fact that the defendant's age and clear record played a determining role which spared him the punishment of immediate imprisonment. After careful consideration, I, with some reluctance, have decided to make a Rehabilitation Centre Order, which will be the sentence for the robbery charge. I believe a Rehabilitation Centre Order will benefit the defendant most in terms of disciplinary training, reformation and punishment.