HKSAR v. Lo Sing-chee, also known as Lo Shing-chi

DCCC 482/2020

[2021] HKDC 256

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 482 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

Reasons for Sentence

________________________

1.The defendant has been convicted after trial of one offence of robbery.

2.The facts show that this was an armed robbery at a convenience store which is a serious offence.  The robbery itself had a somewhat amateurish quality to it although the defendant was disguised.  He drew the knife at the time when the victim, PW1, was behind a locked door so the risk was very low.  Secondly, what was taken in the robbery was simply 15 packets of cigarettes valued at $850.  So although of itself a serious offence to rob a convenience store, we can see that from other authorities it is perhaps the least serious type of that kind of offence.

3.The defendant is aged 57.  At the time of his arrest he appeared to be living on a street in a camp in a Cherry Street subway.  He had got his bed there and a sort of tent that he created for himself.  He is described as having no fixed residence but I am told he has an address now.  The parents have passed away.  No longer a drug addict and had no serious illness, and was unemployed.

4.He has a fairly lengthy criminal record, some 31 previous appearances in court, a large number of drug and petty theft related offences starting in 1984 and going on till about 2005.  Then, save for an offence of fraud in 2012, the defendant does not appear to have committed any offences since then.  The defendant appears to have succumbed to the temptation to try and get some easy quick money in this case.

5.The approach to sentencing can be found in various authorities, but the leading authority on robberies where knives or other dangerous weapons are involved is Mo Kwong Sang, Court of Appeal 359/1981.  The approach of the courts is as follows: in imposing sentence, little account should be given to previous clear record of anyone who takes part in armed robbery.  It is not relevant to this case.  The appropriate sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery, where the accused carried a knife or other dangerous weapon which he displayed to his victim should be 5 years’ imprisonment.  That is clearly established in this case.  If the robbery also involves an invasion of private premises, a sentence of 6 years will be appropriate.  That again is proved in this case.  There is no actual physical violence.  The only other aggravating factor would be the kind of premises, which is the convenience store.

6.Taking all the factors into consideration, the defendant’s age, his previous criminal record, the nature of this convenience store robbery, I consider that the starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment - that would be established by the Mo Kwong Sang authority - is the appropriate starting point.  There are no additional aggravating or mitigating factors beyond the ones that I have already set out and neither of those would alter the starting point for sentence.  The starting point for sentence as this was a case where the defendant was convicted after trial is also the finishing point for sentence.  So the sentence I will impose on the defendant for this offence is one of 6 years’ imprisonment.