HKSAR v. Dost Imran

DCCC 492/2020

[2021] HKDC 592

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 492 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

Reasons for Sentence

________________________

1.The defendant has been convicted after trial of an offence of robbery where certain items were taken from the victim but most of them were in fact returned shortly after.

2.The victim, in fact, as a result of some assault after the robbery had taken place, sustained abrasions and cuts over his face, left hand and fingers and his left knee. 

3.The defendant is aged 30.  He is originally from Pakistan.  He came to Hong Kong as a torture claimant in 2014.  He is married with a wife.  He has a son aged six and was living in a flat in Canton Road in Kowloon. 

4.He has one previous conviction in 2018 for criminal damage for which he was fined.  It does not appear relevant to my sentencing exercise today. 

5.Although I did point out that there was a physical assault on the victim, the facts of the offence show that the two men were known to each other socially through an evening being together on 26 December when they had interacted socially together with other men and then the attack occurred at Tai Mo Shan later that evening, obviously after an amount of drink had been taken by everybody.  So it is possible that the robbery itself was not premeditated, it was an opportunistic robbery by the men concerned. 

6.In sentencing in robbery cases, the courts are bound by the case of Mo Kwong Sang v R [1981] HKCA 62, which provides guidelines as to sentencing in robbery cases.  At paragraph 12, the courts said:

“We suggest that, in future, the appropriate sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery, where the accused was carrying a knife or other dangerous weapon which he displayed to his victim should normally be five years.”

7.It would appear to be on the facts of this case that that starting point can be adopted by the court for this offence. 

8.The defendant is also a Form 8 holder and normally it has been indicated by the Court of Appeal there should be some elevation in sentence or uplift in sentence to recognise the fact that the defendant has that status and that he has, to a certain extent, abused that status in Hong Kong by committing offences.  I consider that there should be an elevation of sentence and that it is an aggravating factor in this case. I will increase the sentence by 3 months to recognise that factor. 

9.The final sentence imposed will be one of 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.