On 12 July 2016, in the afternoon, the defendant approached a staff of the Hui Brothers Money Exchange Company, which is a shop on the ground floor of a building in Queen’s Road East, to ask about the exchange rate of the Chinese yuan. A few minutes later, the defendant returned to the shop counter and asked for 200,000. At that juncture, the defendant took out a grenade-like object which was green in colour and had a grooved surface and it also had a safety pin. The staff of the shop noticed that the defendant had wrapped tapes around his fingertips. The defendant then threatened the staff and told them that they should quickly take out $200,000 because he wanted the money to save life or they will die together. The defendant also became emotional and pulled out the safety pin and started swearing.
Eventually, the staff of the shop had no alternative but to take out HK$100,000 and also gave the defendant 50,000 Chinese yuan. The defendant then left with the money while still holding the grenade-like object.
The course of the robbery was recorded on the CCTV camera and subsequently, police were able to trace the defendant and arrested him. At the time of his arrest, the defendant had HK$31,010 in cash and Chinese yuan of $1,912 with him. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he was in debt to loan shark and that he felt he had no way out and therefore he used the grenade, which was a fake grenade, in order to get the money to repay the loan sharks.
Further, in a video-recorded interview, he said that he owed money to money-lenders in Hong Kong and also a loan shark on the mainland. He said he searched on the internet for where to buy dummy grenade and he subsequently found a store in Hong Kong from where he purchased the dummy grenade and a dummy pistol.
He said he decided to rob the shop because the door of that money exchange store was not locked and there was a small window where he could, during the robbery, display the dummy grenade. He said he wrapped his fingertips in tape because he did not want to leave any fingerprints behind.
Subsequent investigation by the police confirmed that the defendant had bought a fake grenade model at the shop called J K Army for $118 on 23 June. He also bought an air-pistol and some BB bullets.
The defendant is aged 36 and had four previous convictions in Hong Kong. Three were for theft in 2003 and one for robbery in 2004. In mitigation, Mr Lam disclosed the background of why the defendant committed this present offence. Mr Lam said that the defendant needed money desperately in 2016 to pay the medical bills of his girlfriend and so borrowed money from the loan sharks. After his girlfriend passed away in 2016, the loan sharks began asking for the return of the money and threatened to contact his mother and family.
Mr Lam also read a letter which the defendant wrote to this court, explaining that he is remorseful and that he all along never intended to hurt anybody. He apologised to the victims in the shop who were frightened by his actions and asked for leniency.
Mr Lam, in mitigation, also produced the case of HKSAR v Mang Wai Unreported CACC4/2007, a Court of Appeal case in 2007. In that case, the defendant had pleaded guilty to attempted robbery. He had attempted to rob a bank with a fake bomb. In that case, the defendant was sentenced after a guilty plea, to 8 years’ imprisonment. In that case, the Court of Appeal referred to the case of The Queen v Yu Tai Wing [1995]1 HKC837 in 1995, where Macdougall VP (as he then was) said:
“For policy reasons, we take the view that in the case of bank robberies, jewellery shop and goldsmith shop robberies, security van or payroll robberies and suchlike, no distinction should be made between cases where genuine firearms are used but not discharged and those in which imitation firearms are used. Obviously, the risk that a loaded genuine firearm carried by a robber might be discharged in the course of such a robbery does not exist where the robber is armed with an imitation firearm.”
The vice-president went on to say:
“But the chance that the police or security guards who are called to or happen upon the scene might open fire in the course of such robberies cannot be overlooked. The risk of innocent bystanders being killed or injured is always present in circumstances where decisions have to be made in split seconds.”
The Court of Appeal in Mang Wai’s case also stressed that the same logic applies equally to the use of fake bombs and suchlike devices and they reiterated that the fact that the bomb was fake does not make much difference in terms of the anguish caused to the staff and the general fear engendered by this offence.
As had been noted by the Court of Appeal in that case, generally, the starting point for sentence for armed robbery of banks, whether with real or imitation weapons, would merit a starting point of between 12 and 15 years’ imprisonment. I see no difference between robbing a money exchange store and a bank or jewellery shop because it is apparent to everybody that money exchange stores carry large amounts of money and they are open for business and are particularly vulnerable.
In the second case referred to by Mr Lam, that is HKSAR v Peter Chow Tat Hi, another Court of Appeal case in 2004, that relates to a mah-jong school and in that case, the defendant had used a toy gun to enter the mah-jong school and was overpowered by staff members of the mah-jong school. It was noted in that case, not a very well-planned operation, and so at the end of the day, the sentence of the appellant in that case was reduced.
I can see the difference in the facts of that case to the present case as that case was dealing with a mah-jong school where it is not particularly vulnerable as a money exchange store. In this case also, the defendant had some planning prior to, rather sophisticated planning if I may say, prior to the commission of this offence because he researched on the internet in order to buy himself a fake grenade and a fake pistol. Of course, the defendant never used the pistol for the robbery in this case but he did use the fake grenade which would have caused considerable terror to the staff of the shop, particularly when he pulled out the safety pin.
So in view of these aggravating features, that it is a rather well-planned robbery; he had an imitation grenade with him; the victims were threatened and put in fear for their lives, and with all these aggravating features and the fact that this is a shop which needed to be also particularly protected as our banks and goldsmith shops, I would consider that a starting point sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment is reasonable in the circumstances.
Giving the defendant the full one-third discount for his early plea, I will reduce the sentence to 8 years’ imprisonment. So the sentence is 8 years.