HKSAR v. Wong Hiu Fai

DCCC797/2020

[2021] HKDC 672

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 797 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.Mr Wong pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2.The particulars are that he, on 12 May 2020, at “KICHEONG JEWELLERY”, Ground Floor, Kai Hei Land Building, No 385 Castle Peak Road – Castle Peak Bay, Tuen Mun, New Territories, in Hong Kong, robbed Kung Yee Sau and Sit Nga Fong of 18 gold bracelets and 11 gold necklaces.

Facts admitted by Mr Wong

3.On 12 May 2020, at around 1445 hours, Mr Wong, wearing a face mask, a black jacket and black pants, entered the subject jewellery shop.  While two staff members PW1 and PW2 (whose names appeared in the charge) were showing a gold necklace to him, Mr Wong pulled up his top exposing a black handled object tucked into his pants.  He said he wanted money.  He asked PW1 and PW2 to take out a jewellery tray from the display case and put all the necklaces into a black bag.  PW1 put 10 odd gold bracelets and 10 odd gold necklaces into the bag.  Mr Wong then fled.  Case was reported to the police.  PW1 later found one gold necklace had fallen to the floor.

4.At around 1450 hours the same day, PW4 an off-duty police officer (PC11053) was at the vicinity and saw Mr Wong holding a black bag run out from the shop. Mr Wong ran towards On Ting Estate.  PW4 returned to his car and drove to On Ting Estate.  At 1454 hours, PW4 intercepted Mr Wong at On Ting Estate.  Inside Mr Wong’s black bag, PW4 found some gold ornaments.  PW4 arrested Mr Wong and called for reinforcement.  Police arrived and arrested Mr Wong.  Upon search, a black-handled knife was found on Mr Wong.  Inside the black bag were found 18 gold bracelets and 10 gold necklaces.  The gold jewellery in the bag and the gold necklace on the floor were confirmed to be property belonging to the shop to the total value of $356,404.

5.CCTV footage showed Mr Wong entered the shop twice half an hour apart; that it was during the second visit that the robbery took place.

6.Under caution at the scene, Mr Wong said he robbed with a knife because he owed people at lot of money.  During a subsequent VRI, he admitted committing the robbery alone with a knife tucked into his pants.

Criminal record

7.Mr Wong has a clear record.

Antecedents

8.Mr Wong is aged 22 (21 at the time of the offence), educated to F3 and he started but did not complete a commerce diploma at IVE.  He was a chef until May 2020 but since then has become unemployed.  He is single and was living with mother and two younger siblings in public housing in Tuen Mun.

Mitigation

9.Mr James Sherry of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Wong.

10.The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

11.Prior to the offence, Mr Wong had been working as a chef for over 8 months earning about $600 per day.  A letter from the employer (with English translation) shows that Mr Wong was a serious, well-mannered and diligent employee and the employer was willing to re-employ Mr Wong on his release from prison.

12.The reason why Mr Wong committed the offence was that his online gambling resulted in a loss of all his savings and also a large sum from his mother.  It was submitted that the robbery was opportunistic and poorly conceived by someone acting alone and who had been assessed in 2012 by an educational psychologist to be of limited intelligence and capability (copy report with English translation produced).  Mr Wong acted out of character.

13.Mr Wong pleaded guilty in good time which reflected his genuine remorse.

14.Mr Sherry referred to Mo Kwong Sang v The Queen, CACC  359/1981, and suggested a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment.  Apart from asking for the one third discount, Mr Sherry urged the court to afford Mr Wong extra discount for his young age, and his clear record.

15.Mr Sherry submitted three mitigation letters (with English translation) on Mr Wong’s behalf.  One was written by Mr Wong’s mother and the other two were written by Mr Wong himself (one addressed to the court and the other addressed to staff of the subject shop).  Contents are generally that Mr Wong is remorseful and will not re-offend; that he committed the offence because he was in debt; that he felt regretful to the staff of the shop; and he asked for a chance from the court to turn over a new leaf.

16.Upon enquiry by the court, Mr Sherry has no particular submission to make on the aggravating factor of the shop being a goldsmith/jewellery shop.

Sentence

17.I have considered all the mitigation submissions.  I noted there is full recovery of the stolen property but this is only due to the agility of the off-duty PC11053.

18.Robbery is a serious offence.  Mo Kwong Sang v The Queen laid down what the usual sentence is for an ordinary case of robbery where the knife or other dangerous weapon was displayed to the victim.  It is 5 years’ imprisonment.  However, this case has an aggravating factor and which is the target robbed was a jewellery shop: see HKSAR v Yip Hoi Kei [2005] 2 HKLRD 166.  It was said there that a jewellery shop as a target was even more serious that a post office which already should warrant a higher starting point.

19.In the premises, I adjudge that in the present case, a starting point of 5 years 6 months is justified.  I don’t see how this robbery can be described as opportunistic when it was committed with a knife of some length being carried into the shop.

20.Mr Wong pleaded guilty in good time and is therefore entitled to the full 1/3 discount.  Other than that, I cannot discern any other mitigating factors of sufficient weight to justify any further reduction.  In particular, ordinary youth and clear record of the offender are not effective mitigating factors in a case of this kind.

(Mr Wong, please stand)

21.The sentence for Mr Wong is 44 months’ imprisonment.