HKSAR v. Rai Bijaya

DCCC 549/2020

[2020] HKDC 1105

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 549 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The charge

1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

Summary of facts

2.On 7 March 2020 at around 10:15a.m., PURJA PUN Admimaya (“the victim”), a 69 years old, retired lady, was walking home. When she reached the staircase on the 1st Floor of the building where she lived, namely No.128 Temple Street, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon, the Defendant suddenly approached her from behind, covered her mouth and snatched away the pair of gold earrings she was wearing. The Defendant immediately fled to the street. The matter was reported to the police.

3.As the Defendant snatched the earrings by force, the victim sustained redness to both her ears and required treatments at Kwong Wah Hospital.

4.The estimated value of the earrings was at about HK$16,000.

5.CCTV of a shop in the vicinity showed that the Defendant was watching the victim when she entered the building in question. The Defendant followed her into the building and ran out of it shortly thereafter. The victim was then seen coming out of the building looking for help.

6.On 11 May 2020 at No.150 Shanghai Street, PC 12606 recognised the Defendant as he was wearing similar clothing as the person shown in the said CCTV. Upon enquiry, the Defendant admitted that he had robbed a lady of a pair of gold earrings on 7 March 2020 and he sold the earrings on the same day at HK$5,000. PC 12606 arrested the Defendant for the offence of robbery.

7.The Defendant was interviewed at Yaumatei Police Station on the same day and admitted under caution that as he was unemployed and had no money, he robbed the earrings from the elderly lady out of a moment of greed and asked for a chance. He sold the pair of earrings on the same day of the robbery at a jewellery shop in Shanghai Street for HK$5,000.

Previous convictions

8.The Defendant has 2 previous convictions for “robbery” and was sentenced on 6^th August 2018 to a total of 32 months’ imprisonment. He was discharged on 18 October 2019, which was only 5 months before the commission of the present offence.

Background

9.The Defendant is aged 42. He was born in Nepal and came to HK in 1999. He is a divorcee with two sons. The sons are both adults but one of them is unemployed while the other has an unstable income.

10.Prior to his arrest for the present offence, the Defendant worked as a construction site worker. However, his income fluctuated and very often he did not have any work to do at all. Although he has some other family members in HK, they have not been able to help him financially.

Mitigation

11.Counsel told me that the Defendant committed the present offence due to financial difficulties. Counsel explained that given the time the Defendant had spent in jail for his previous convictions and the fact that he had no savings, he was desperate to find money to pay his rental, and hence committed the present offence.

12.Counsel informed me that the Defendant accepts full responsibility for what he had done and would like to apologise to the victim. Counsel also urged me to take into account the following:

-  the minor injuries suffered by the victim;

-  the Defendant committed the offence alone;

-  no weapon was usedand

-  it was more of an opportunistic offence.

13.Counsel further said the Defendant had been drinking prior to the commission of the offence. 

Sentencing Considerations

14.Robbery is a serious offence and it carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.  Counsel referred me to a number of case authorities.

15.In HKSAR v Ting Chiu [1], the Court of Appeal held that for an offence of robbery without weapon, the starting point should be lower than that for an armed robbery of the kind envisaged in the case of Mo Kwong Sang v The Queen [2].

16.While in the case of The Queen v Yau Kwok Tung [3], Robert CJ delivering judgment of the case said that: - “A sentence of 4 years is at the top end for robberies where no weapon was being displayed. The same principle was reiterated by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Lam Ka Hung [4].

17.In this case, I bear in mind that it was a robbery carried out by the Defendant alone, without any weapon. The value of the earrings stolen was about HK$16,000 and they have not been recovered.

18.I am particularly concerned about the fact that a 69 years old lady was picked as the victim in this case. The Defendant covered her mouth from behind and snatched away her earrings by force, which caused her injuries. No doubt, it must have been a scary experience for the old lady.

19.Having considered all the circumstances of the case, Counsel’s mitigation and the authorities submitted, I consider the appropriate starting point should be one of 4 years’ imprisonment.

20.However, this is the Defendant’s third conviction for robbery and, as such, should be treated as an aggravating factor. It is trite law that the sentence for an offender with similar previous convictions may need to be enhanced in order to deter and protect the society as a whole. Clearly, the previous sentence did not serve much as a deterrent to the Defendant.  To get the message across and to serve the public interest, I will increase the starting point by 3 months to make it 4 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, as indicated in the case of HKSAR v Chan Pui Chi [5].

21.Taking into account the Defendant’s guilty plea, I will give him the full 1/3 discount.

Sentence

22.The Defendant is sentenced to 34 months’ imprisonment for this offence.