HKSAR v. Wu Wai Pong

DCCC 1049/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1049 OF 2016

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.Defendant has pleaded guilty to and is convicted of a charge of attempted robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.

Facts

2.At about 5:20 am on 16 October 2016, a female victim, PW1, was just getting off from a public light bus and walking near Choi Shek Lane in Ngau Tau Kok intending to go home.  Defendant also was getting off from the same public light bus.  He followed the victim and walked to the footbridge near Choi Shek Lane.  At one point PW1 got inside the lift of the footbridge and the defendant followed her from behind and walked inside the lift. 

3.In the lift, the defendant was standing behind PW1 who was alerted so she held onto her handbag tightly with both of her hands.  When the lift reached the 1st floor of the footbridge, the defendant moved close to PW1, and while the door of the lift opened, the defendant snatched PW1’s handbag with his left hand.

4.PW1 immediately turned around and confronted the defendant as to why he was touching her handbag.  She resisted and held onto her handbag.  At the same time, the defendant continued to pull the handbag away from PW1 whilst PW1 tried to pull it back from the defendant.

5.A struggle between the two ensued for about two seconds.  In the end, the defendant was unable to take away the handbag.  He let go, left the lift and fled towards the direction of Ping Shek Estate.  A report was made to the police thereafter.

6.The police viewed the CCTV installed in the lift and found that a male matching the description of the suspect given by PW1 in the CCTV. Subsequently, the defendant was located at Room 618 of Wong Shek House.

7.The defendant was arrested and cautioned for the offence under which he denied the offence.  However, in the subsequent ID parade, the defendant was positively identified by PW1 to be the male who tried to snatch her handbag at the material time. 

8.In the incident, PW1 did not suffer any injury.  She did not lose any property and no damage has been caused to any of the properties. 

Criminal background and mitigation

9.The defendant in the past had 18 previous criminal records, six of which involving dishonesty.  There was a similar offence of robbery record which was dated back in 1989 when the defendant was still young and was sentenced to the Detention Centre.  His last conviction was in 2012 when he was convicted of an offence of behaving in a disorderly or noisy manner in a public place where he was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment.

10.The antecedent statement refers the defendant to be educated up to Form 3 in Hong Kong and he is still single and he lives together with his age-old parents, both aged 81 and aged 76, in a public housing estate in Ping Shek Estate. 

11.His lawyer, Mr Jimmy Chan, in mitigation further explained why the defendant committed the present offence.  After the defendant was released or discharged from prison in 2012, I was told that he worked steadily as a restaurant manager, earning a stable income of $19,000 odd per month.  Each month he paid $9,000 as a contribution to his parents.

12.However, shortly before the present offence, the owner of the restaurant had sold his business to a new entrepreneur, and after this new owner took over the business, the defendant felt tremendous pressure because he felt that the new owner did not treat him well and he was always under the constant fear that he would lose his job and also the long service pay from the job if the new owner would just sack him.

13.At the material time of the offence, the defendant went to a birthday party of his friend and during the occasion he drank a lot and consumed a lot of alcohol before returning home. 

14.Mr Chan described the defendant’s act as foolish and was an act of impulse and he urged the court to be as lenient as possible stating that the defendant has been really remorseful and he understand that a custodial sentence is unavoidable.

Sentencing consideration

15.Attempted robbery is of course a serious offence.  In R v Yau Kwok Tung [1987] HKLR 782, the Court of Appeal stated that a sentence of 4 years is at the top end of the tariff for robberies where weapons are not displayed. In HKSAR v Ku Kwok Wai CACC14/2012, the Court of Appeal had further stated that in cases of unarmed robberies, the sentence varied from 2 years and 8 months to 4 years’ imprisonment depending on circumstances.

16.In this present case, the defendant had targeted lone females walking along the street when it was dark.  I bear in mind that in this case the defendant did act alone and had not used any or displayed any weapon.  Although there was struggle ensued between the defendant and the victim, luckily no injury was suffered by the victim and the victim also had not suffered any financial loss. 

17.That said, however, persons particularly ladies should expect to be able to walk along the street in Hong Kong when it was dark safely and not to face predators such as the defendant.

18.In all the circumstances, taking into account of all the features in this case, I adopt the starting point of 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment as I consider that the present offence is only one step up from snatching.  After a discount of one-third from the sentence, the final sentence is therefore 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.