HKSAR v. Beagum Bilkish

DCCC 657/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 657 OF 2016

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant is convicted after trial and the facts of the case are fully canvassed in my reasons for verdict.

Mitigation

2.The defendant is 31 years old.  She was a tutor in Bangladesh and came to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper before the incident.  She was married but her husband died before she came to Hong Kong.  She has a new born baby and the father of the baby is her Indian boyfriend whom she has met in Hong Kong. She was departing for Bangladesh on the day of arrest with a view to setting up a new family with her boyfriend.  She committed the offence because she was in need of money.

3.The defendant had a previous criminal record of Breach of condition of stay and was sentenced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment suspended for 3 years.  With this new conviction, the defendant is actually in breach of her suspended sentence.  However, given the different nature of the offences and the defendant has in fact observed almost half of the long suspended sentence, I do not find it fit to activate the 4 weeks’ suspended sentence.

Sentence

4.Robbery is a serious offence.  The maximum sentence for robbery on conviction upon indictment is that of imprisonment for life.

5.No knife or weapon has been used in this case and therefore the proper basis for sentence is that which is appropriate for an unarmed robbery.  The starting point for an unarmed robbery is generally no more

than 4 years imprisonment, see R v Yau Kwok Tung [1987] HKLR 782 as applied in HKSAR v Ting Chiu[2003] 3 HKLRD 378.

6.In the present case, the defendant got hold of PW1’s neck from behind and hit her on her head, shoulders, chest and arms.  PW1 did not go for medical consultation immediately after the incident but she said she felt pain on body and headache after the robbery.  She however did not have obvious injuries after the incident.

7.It was around 7 pm at the material time and there were quite a number of passers-by in the park.  The robbery was not a premeditated one and the defendant was acting alone. 

8.The amount of money stolen was HK$12,000 and the defendant was not able to pay any compensation to PW1.

9.I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the background of the defendant and all the mitigation put forward on behalf of the defendant by her counsel.

10.Having considered all the circumstances, I take 3 years’ imprisonment as a starting point.  I give a reduction of 3 months’ imprisonment, on humanitarian ground, because of the new born baby and the fact that the defendant was planning to go back to her home for reunion with her family.  There is no other mitigation warranting further reduction in my view.

11.The defendant is accordingly sentenced to 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.