The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The person robbed in this case was a Mr Wong. Wong was a businessman from Macau who conducted courier services in Hong Kong for pawn shops and jewellery shops doing business in Macau. He rented a flat in Yau Ma Tei and lived there with a Mr Ho. As part of the courier services, cash in millions of dollars was often kept in the flat.
On the day of the incident, 28 September 2020, Wong was asked to deliver cash in Jordan. He asked Ho for assistance. He carried a rucksack containing $7 million and Ho carried the rucksack containing $8 million.
When they were about to catch a taxi, someone arm-locked Ho’s neck and snatched his rucksack. He put up a struggle, the rucksack was damaged. When the rucksack dropped, some of the cash inside scattered on the ground.
At the same time, two people each armed with a knife rushed towards Wong and tried to snatch his rucksack. Wong fell onto the ground. One man raised his knife and looked as if he was about to chop Wong but did not actually do so. Wong managed to get up and shouted for help. The robbers fled. Eventually Wong managed to recover from the ground $2.5 million. The loss of cash was about $5.3 million. As a result of the incident, Wong sustained abrasions on his left elbow, hands and right knee.
The incident took place around 12.30 at noon. A witness saw some of the robbers were armed with a beef knife, they alighted from a Porsche car which had been in the vicinity since 11 am. The car was later confirmed to bear false number plates.
The defendant was arrested one month later on 30 October 2020. Under caution he said inter alia that he had received $3,000 to go to assault someone in Yau Ma Tei. In two subsequent video-recorded interviews he repeated similar confession and made further statements including the following. Prior to the incident he was told to stay in a hotel and there he was joined by two unknown persons. He knew he was to team up with them to beat someone up.
On the day of the incident he was told to drive the Porsche car from a car park. At the entrance of the car park a person took over as driver, two more people boarded the car. They went to the vicinity of the incident and waited for instructions. When they were informed that the targets had appeared, he jumped out from the car and chased the target. He was armed with a plastic ruler. During the chase, the target fell onto the ground. He did not attack the target and later returned to the car. He fled in the car and went to Kwun Tong. After the other people had alighted, he drove the car away and abandoned it.
The defendant is single, 20 years of age at the time of offence. He received education up to Form 3 and was unemployed at the time of the offence. He did not have a clear record but it was the first time he committed an offence of this nature. In 2019, he was convicted of the offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs and was sentenced to rehabilitation centre. Seemingly, the previous offence was not a particularly serious one and therefore will have little significant impact on the sentence in the present case. However, he committed the present case only after a few months after he is discharged from the rehabilitation centre after recall.
His parents have divorced and the defendant had lost contact with his mother for more than 10 years. At the time of the offence, the defendant was living with his grandmother and his brother. His grandmother is 72 years old and started to have hearing problem.
Learned counsel for the defence, Mr Freddy Woon, stressed that the defendant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. He said the defendant was cooperative upon arrest. He is full of remorse and is determined to turn over a new leaf. Mr Woon informed the court that after the defendant had been discharged from the rehabilitation centre, he became a kitchen apprentice in a Japanese restaurant. In March 2020, he quitted the job and started to work for his brother as a transportation worker. As a result of economic downturn during the pandemic, his brother could not afford to employ him and the defendant became unemployed.
As regards the circumstances in which the defendant came to engage in this case, Mr Woon told the court that on the day prior to the incident, the defendant received a telephone call from a friend called Ah Muk inviting him to attack a man for a reward of $3,000. As his relationship with Ah Muk was good, he agreed without thinking about the serious consequence. Ah Muk did not tell him the reason why that man has to be attacked. He told the defendant that he would be told at appropriate time who the target was.
On the day, as instructed, he drove a car to a place where several men boarded the car and another man replaced him as the driver. After they had arrived at the vicinity, the driver told him in fact they were going to rob some people. A person also told him that he did not need to take part in certain things. He would only be responsible to push down the man who was carrying a backpack. The defendant foolishly did not refuse and eventually took part in the robbery. The defendant did not know how much money would be involved. He had not received any reward as promised.
Despite the defendant is not a person with clear record, Mr Woon asked the court not to take into account the record as it was not related to the offence of dishonesty, let alone robbery. Mr Woon also urged the court to accept that the defendant did not possess any weapon and he was not the person who displayed the knife. The defendant did not have a share to the proceeds robbed.
At the hearing today, the grandmother and brother are present to support the defendant. His brother wrote a letter to plead leniency on behalf of the defendant. The defendant also wrote a letter in which he expressed remorse.
In sentencing, I take into account the factors as stated in cases including Mo Kwong Sang v R [1981] HKLR 610, SJ v Ma Ping Wah, HKSAR v Ting Chiu [2003] 3 HKLRD 378, SJ v Lee Man Chiu(Biu?), CAAR 4/2000, HKSAR v Man Siu Ming, CACC 318/2011 and HKSAR v Lai Kam Tong [2005] 1 HKC 232.
The robbery was clearly premeditated and those who planned this unlawful operation must have targeted on something substantial. Substantial financial loss has actually been caused to the victim. However, as there is no clear contrary evidence, I accept that the defendant was only recruited to take part and consider sentence on the basis that the defendant only came to know at a late stage that he was to engage in a robbery.
In any case, he decided to continue his participation and lend his assistance. Besides, at all times, he joined knowing that violence would be applied to the victim. Four persons were involved, at least two of them were equipped with beef knifes. There is no evidence that the defendant was equipped with a lethal weapon but it must have been obvious to him that his partners did. In a case like this, actual use of the weapon cannot be said to be beyond reasonable contemplation of any of the culprits. The victims were assaulted and suffered injuries which were not serious.
The defendant was relatively young at the time of the offence. He however had a previous conviction record which was of a serious nature. The seriousness of the present case is of such a degree that only an imprisonment term is sufficient and appropriate.
In all the circumstances, I am of the view that a starting point of 7 years is appropriate and only this level of sentence is sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the case. But defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate and therefore is entitled to a one-third discount.
Having considered the whole circumstances, including mitigation put forward on the defendant’s behalf, I am of the view that this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to.
For the sentence I have mentioned, I sentence you to an imprisonment term of 4 years and 8 months.