HKSAR v. Chan Kwai Leung Peter

DCCC 492/2017
[2018] HKDC 118

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 492 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.This is a taxi robbery. The defendant, a 43-year-old man who pleaded guilty to one count of robbery, robbed a 67-year-old taxi driver of one hundred dollars of cash at knifepoint. His other count, Wounding 19, is left on Court’s file.

2.The incident occurred about 6 p.m. on 19 March 2017 when the defendant jumped in a taxi in Choi Wan Estate, Ngau Chi Wan to go to Inverness Street in Kowloon city.

3.Arriving at the destination, instead of paying for the taxi fare the defendant put his arm around the neck of the driver from behind demanding for money and at the same time pointing a cutter against the driver’s neck.

4.The driver was robbed of $100 of cash and the defendant took off on foot telling the driver not to call the police. The driver armed himself with a water bottle and then gave chase.

5.He soon caught up with the defendant who pointed a cutter at the driver. After a brief scuffle between the two, the defendant ran off to a nearby park while the driver ran back to his taxi to call the police.

6.Before the police came on scene, the driver returned to the park to confront the defendant again. The defendant, who still had the cutter in his hand, blamed the driver for calling the police and then charged at the driver. This time the driver was able to subdue the defendant but injured himself in the ensuing scuffle – the driver had his left index finger cut by the cutter, which needed two stitches.

7.The defendant was taken into custody when the police arrived, and in his jacket pocket, the officers found a $100 banknote which belonged to the taxi driver.

8.Under caution, the defendant told the officers that he robbed the taxi driver because he needed money to repay his debts to finance companies.

9.The court heard that the defendant has been a government employee with the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department as a workman for over 20 years, but strange to say, he has amassed 3 previous convictions in 2003 and 2013, all relating to dishonest offences, for which he was either given suspended sentences or short prison term.  

10.Apart from his own letter to the court, the defendant has his two superiors written to court to plead leniency on his behalf. Both speak highly of the defendant saying that the defendant performed his work excellently.

11.Counsel for the defendant said that he committed the offence out of finance difficulties because he had to repay the government the sick leave allowances of slightly above $360,000 he had been given for 4 years previously by way of deduction of salary, and so far, he has only managed to repay half of it.

12.And this, counsel said, had caused problems to his marital relationship and eventually the defendant and his wife are getting divorced.

13.Defence counsel submits that taxi robbery is undoubtedly a serious offence, but it was committed not at night time, and therefore asks the court to adopt 5 years as the starting point relying on the case, Fung On CACC 568/1999 a Chinese Judgment, saying that the facts are not dissimilar to the present case.

14.Counsel is right when he referred to taxi robbery as serious offence, and I think this is to do with the fact that they as taxi drivers have to face their customers alone during their trade and this is the vulnerability of their job.

15.In the case, Mohammed Amjad CACC 602/2011, the Court of Appeal said, “The rationale is to protect vulnerable taxi drivers and the customary starting point for the sentence is between five and six years imprisonment.”

16.Given the facts of the present case, I take 5 years as starting point, and reduce it to 40 months to reflect his guilty plea. As far as mitigation is concerned, I see no other reasons for any further reduction in sentence, the defendant is therefore sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment.