HKSAR v. Wong Sze Sing (also known as Wong Pak Yin) and Another

DCCC 1106/2021

[2022] HKDC 974

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1106 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Charges

1.The defendants have each been convicted after trial of one count of robbery, charge 1 in D1’s case and charge 2 in D2’s.  The robberies took place on two consecutive days, namely the 11^th and the 12^th January 2020, both in the very early morning of that days and both involving the same victim. In fact the modus operandi employed by the robbers were almost identical.

The Facts

2.For charge 1, in the very early morning of the 11^th, D1, PW1, Ah Hei and Fat Sam, and D2 also, met up in Tai Yuen Estate, Tai Po, and they went by taxi to an illegal fuel station in the vicinity of the Kwai Chung Container Terminal.  Upon arrival, PW1, Ah Hei and Fat Sam alighted, leaving D1 and D2 behind in the taxi.  PW1 and the two others then went inside the fuel station where they drew their knives out and robbed the two workers inside, meaning Kwan and Lo, of HK$12,600.  After they got the money the three returned to the taxi and with it went back to Tai Po.  The five split then the proceeds equally amongst them. According to PW1 he said he got about $500 to a $1,000 for this robbery. 

3.For charge 2, D2, PW2, Ah Hei and Fat Sam also met up in Tai Yuen Estate.  The plan was for them to go and rob a game centre in Sheung Shui, but that did not work out as they saw police officers around when they went there. D2 then changed the plan and suggested going back to the same fuel station in Kwai Chung.  After arriving there by taxi D2 remained in the taxi whereas PW2, Ah Hei and Fat Sam alighted to execute their duty.  They went inside the fuel station, drew their knives and demanded for money.  Now according to PW2, they did not even have to hold their knives up against any of the workers there because Kwan, who was present on both this and the last robbery, obviously knew from his experience that these people were there to rob.  After they got the money they went back to Tai Po and, whilst on their way, split the money on board the taxi, each apparently getting about $500.

4.At the trial I had the opportunity of watching the video records taken by the CCTV stored at the fuel station and I could see that the knives being used were large ones which almost looked like machetes.

Mitigation

5.Dealing with D1 first, D1 is now a little over 22.  Although he could not be considered very young I have nevertheless called for a background report from which I have learned the following.  D1 began working after Form 3.  He is said to be working for his uncle at the time of the offence.  His parents have divorced and D1 has been living with his mother, a younger brother and a very young sister at the time of the offence.  Apparently his girlfriend had also moved in to live with the family and the relationship within the family is said to be good.  D1 has been in trouble with the law before. In March 2016, when he was still around 15 years of age, he was convicted of common assault and was put on probation for 15 months.  In July the same year he was given probation for 18 months for a charge of criminal damage.  On both occasions D1 managed to complete probation to the satisfaction of the Probation officer.

6.D2 was born on 21 December 2003 and is now therefore 18½ years old.  She was just above 17 when she committed the offence under charge 2.  Her father passed away when she was only 9 or 10 years old, and she has been living with her mother and two elder brothers since.  All three of them apparently loved D2 a lot and she is said to have been spoiled according to the Training Centre report which I have called for.  It is said in the report also that, shortly after her father’s death, D2’s mother began to suffer from depression, and D2 herself had also exhibited signs of emotional problems which consisted mainly of low frustration point and anger control difficulty.  This has led to her being referred to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital for consultation with the clinical psychologist there in the year of 2020. 

7.Now bearing in mind the age of the 2^nd defendant at the time of the offence which was almost 16, I have called for a Training Centre report with a view to have her sent there if she is considered suitable. But I have been told this morning by the report that, although she is psychologically fit for the Training Centre program, she has had drug-dependency problem.  She was taking cocaine once a week, indeed her last dose being reportedly consumed by her on 8 August 2022 which was of course the day when she was convicted of the present offence. Because of her drug-dependency problem, it is considered that she is medically unfit to participate in the program and is thus unsuitable for admission. 

Sentencing principles

8.Armed robberies have always been regarded as very serious offences in Hong Kong.  One does not have to go beyond the oft-cited case of Mo Kwong-sang v The Queen CACC359/1981 to know that.  The Chief Justice who was sitting in the case said, and I quote:

“The appropriate sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery where the accused was carrying a knife or other dangerous weapons which were displayed to his victim shall normally be 5 years”.

And it is said by his Lordship there that the sentence could go up to 7 or 8 years if not more if actual violence, such as tying up the victim, was used.

9.In the present case, given that knives were displayed in each of the two robberies, each involving in fact more than one robber and each committed in the early morning which must have caused tremendous alarm and distress to the victims, I see no reason why the starting point for a prison term should not be set at 5 years.  I note also that in each of these robberies there is no doubt that the defendants and their accomplices were taking advantage of the weakness of the people working at the fuel station as they were unlikely to want to draw attention to their setup by making a report to or seeking protection from the police.  That in my view adds to the wickedness of these offences.

10.On the other hand, both defendants are still quite young, more so of course for D2.  Also in D2’s case she has a clear record although it is now known that she has developed a dependency on cocaine.  In D1’s case, although he had two previous convictions they were both offences committed when he was only around 16 years of age and neither of them were for particularly serious offences. 

11.Taking what I hope is a balanced view, I think I am entitled to err on the lenient side when it comes to sentence and adopt a lower starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment.

12.These are long sentences and it pains the court to have to sentence young persons to such terms but I suspect that that is the lowest I could possibly pass on the defendant in the circumstances of this case.  Apart from what I have said there is no other mitigating factor which could have led me to consider a further reduction. 

Sentence

13.On the basis of the aforesaid, each defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 4 years.