HKSAR v. Po Wai Yee
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 310/2019 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment.
1. The Defendant pleads guilty to a charge of robbery.
Cites 2 cases
|
DCCC 310/2019 [2019] HKDC 1441 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 310 OF 2019 -----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
---------------------------- Reasons for Sentence ---------------------------- Charge and Facts 1.The Defendant pleads guilty to a charge of robbery. 2.In the morning on 12 February 2019, Madam LAI (aged 91, “PW1”) visited the Butterfly Estate Market, Butterfly Estate, Tuen Mun, New Territories, in Hong Kong (“the Market”). She was carrying a tote bag and a trolley with her. When she was walking along the corridor connecting the stalls and the toilet (“the Corridor”) situated at G/F of the Market, someone hit her head from behind. She felt painful but suffered no injury. 3.Later when PW1 was about to pay for some vegetables at a vegetable stall in the Market, she found her wallet which originally placed in her tote bag was gone missing. The wallet contained cash of HK$450, about 60 stamps issued by “Wellcome”, and a phone book. The value of the stolen wallet was about HK$20. PW1 reported the case to the police in the morning on 13 February 2019. 4.The police viewed the relevant CCTV footage of Market. It captured the Defendant followed PW1 to the Corridor, and used a long umbrella to hit PW1’s head from behind. The Defendant slowly walked towards PW1’s back when PW1 turned around. When PW1 was looking around, it was then captured the Defendant getting close to the tote bag carried by PW1. The Defendant then left the Corridor from the entrance, and PW1 went towards to the toilet. 5.At about 10:05 on 13 February 2019, the Defendant was intercepted by a police officer near Tuen Mun Promenade, as her appearance closely resembled the culprit being captured in the CCTV footages. Upon enquiries, the Defendant was arrested and cautioned for Robbery. Under caution, the Defendant admitted she had used an umbrella to hit PW1’s head and took a wallet from PW1’s bag. 6.In a subsequent video recorded cautioned interview, the Defendant claimed that when PW1 was at the Corridor, PW1 asked to borrow money from the Defendant, but the Defendant refused to do so. PW1 scolded her. The Defendant then hit PW1’s head with an umbrella, and took away PW1’s wallet. 7.At the material time, the Defendant robbed PW1’s wallet containing cash of HK$450, about 60 stamps and one phone book. Mitigation 8.The Defendant is 76 years of age. She never received any education. She is a widow. She lives with her sons. She had 8 criminal records out of 5 court cases, all for theft (with dates of sentence from 2011 to 2017). Her latest date of sentence was in relation to 3 court cases as follows:
9.The long and short of the multiple suspended sentences, according to my calculations, is that if a subsequent court deems fit to activate the entire length thereof, she is liable to be imprisoned for 6 months and 2 weeks. 10.Mr. So asks me to consider a humanitarian reduction in sentence due to this being her first time in prison at the age of 76. Sentencing considerations 11.It usually takes some aggravating features for an unarmed robbery to reach a starting point of 4 years. In HKSAR v Ting Chiu [2003] 3 HKLRD 378, a couple of hikers was robbed by a gang of 4 of a little cash and property. No violence was used except for holding a hiker still during the robbery. A starting point of 4 years was adopted by the Court of Appeal. 12.After that, HKSAR v Lam Ka Hung CACC 294/2003 had a victim at a quiet bus stop at night in Tai Po so much threatened by a roll of newspapers passed off as a gun pointed at his stomach that he dropped his bag to be taken by the 2 robbers. A starting point of 4 years was adopted by the Court of Appeal. 13.In HKSAR v Tsang Wai Man, the first incident had 2 robbers targeted 2 teenagers at a park and took their mobile phones and cash after slapping one and punching the other. The second incident had the 2 robbers attacking a victim at a park and took his mobile phone and property. A starting point of 4 years for each incident was adopted by the Court of Appeal. 14.The Defendant is a persistent offender for theft. A more deterrent sentence has to be imposed. Sentencing this Defendant 15.The above cases factually exemplify more serious robberies, though unarmed, than our present case, which is, technically speaking, an armed robbery. I incline to take a starting point of 3 years 6 months as there was little violence made out of the umbrella and the victim was not injured. 16.However, I need to aggravate her sentence due to her persistent reoffending. The minimal increment I put up is 3 months. The actual starting point is 3 years 9 months. 17.I give a one-third discount for the plea of guilty. The sentence is 2 years 6 months. 18.The Defendant has been pushing her luck too far this time after receiving only a suspended sentence each time since 2011. Be that as it may, I reduce her sentence by 6 months to reflect the humanitarian ground. The sentence is 2 years. 19.There is no reason not to activate the suspended sentences in full (6 months and 2 weeks). They shall be consecutive to her present sentence.
|
Cases cited in this judgment