COURT: The defendants plead guilty to a count of robbery in the Magistrate’s Court at committal stage and were committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. The particulars of the count are that the defendants, on 24 July 2020, outside Harbour Crystal Centre, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, together with another, robbed Mr Ma Yifan of cash, $1,854,183, and some other valuable items.
The facts of the case are that Mr Ma was a staff of Great Loyalty Money Exchange, operated at Shop 51 on the ground floor of Harbour Crystal Centre. On 24 July 2020, the shop received a sum of cash of 2 million in the late afternoon and would have delivered over 1.8 million to another shop, but for the close of the business for the day of the other shop. Mr Ma put $1,844,183 into a shoulder bag and this money would be delivered to the other shop the next day by his employer, Madam Chao.
At about 7 pm, Mr Ma accompanied Madam Chao to catch a taxi. The bag with cash to be delivered and some other valuable items were carried by Mr Ma. Shortly after they left the shop, while they were on their way to catch a taxi, Mr Ma was chopped on his left shoulder from behind. He turned around and saw a man armed with a knife one-foot long. He felt someone was trying to snatch the bag and he tried to keep the bag. He was chopped again on his left leg. Scared of being further chopped, he let go of the bag and the bag was snatched away from him.
The two robbers fled and Mr Ma attempted to give chase. He gave up as he was badly injured. On the other hand, Madam Chao gave chase but was blocked by the robber armed with knife who not only raised the knife but also stared at her. Madam Chao was scared and stopped for a while. Afterwards, Madam Chao continued to chase but lost sight of them. Meanwhile, the robbers went on board a vehicle and fled from the scene.
Both defendants were arrested in August 2020 on the 22nd, and were identified in identification parades as being the robbers. Leung Ho-hin was being identified as the one who was armed with the knife. The total value of stolen items was $1,868,261 and none of the stolen items was recovered.
Mr Ma suffered from deep laceration wounds over left upper arm and left posterior calf region. The nerve to soleus muscle was also found cut. Wound exploration and repair was performed.
Postoperatively, Mr Ma complained of numbness distal to left arm and leg wounds. Soleus muscle power was found to be poor. This is a vicious attack on Mr Ma, resulting him in some disability for the rest of his life.
The victims, namely Mr Ma and Madam Chao, were wounded or threatened with a lethal weapon. This is a well-planned robbery with getaway vehicle waiting at the vicinity of crime scene. There were at least three people acting in concert and none of the stolen properties, total value over 1.8 million, was recovered. No doubt Great Loyalty Money Exchange was being targeted and the robbery was planned in advance. Both defendants wore caps and facial masks to cover themselves up at the time of the robbery.
In the circumstances of this case, having considered all the facts, I adopt a starting point of 12 years’ imprisonment.
Although Leung Ho-hin has previous convictions for violent offences, including robbery when he was at his teens, I would not enhance the starting point in his case.
As to Leung Chun-ming, I would not reduce the starting point of 12 years because of his clear record, as said in the case of Mo Kwong Sang years ago by the Court of Appeal, nor would I reduce the starting point in his case because of the fact that the injury was inflicted on Mr Ma by his accomplice because this is a joint enterprise and he is equally culpable. I do not accept that he only became aware of the lethal weapon just before the attack.
Background of Leung Ho-hin
He had previous convictions for violent offences. At the age of 14, he was convicted of wounding 19 and was given a chance by the Tsuen Wan Magistracy by placing him on probation order for 18 months. He did not treasure the chance given to him and the probation order was extended twice. Finally, he was sent to DATC for breach of that extended probation order. No doubt from the record he was in breach of the probation order because of drugs.
Not very long after discharge from DATC, when he is still subject to a recall by the DATC, he committed a robbery when he was probably 17 years of age and was sent to training centre. He was only released from the training centre at the end of 2019. Again, soon after his discharge from the training centre and was still subject to recall, he committed a dangerous drugs case on 19 July 2020. And as submitted, he committed the present offence while he was on police bail for the dangerous drugs case. This I consider an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentence in this case, and I would raise the starting point from 12 years to 12½ years.
In mitigation, it was said that he was not aware of the robbery and he was paid to wound Mr Ma with the knife on his arm and leg only for a sum of $50,000. As indicated, I do not accept this and offered whether he wanted to have the matter clear up by way of a Newton hearing, that was declined.
I find it hard to accept this because he pleaded guilty on the basis of joint enterprise to commit a robbery, so there must be an agreement on robbery and the intent to commit the robbery. There was no suggestion that this is an extended form of joint enterprise.
Anyway, I do not think there is much to choose between the two evils. Whether it was a wounding for a reward using a knife or whether it was a robbery, I find that both are very serious, in particular having considered the injury inflicted on Mr Ma. I therefore will not disturb my starting point of 12½ years in his case.
I have read the letters in mitigation. However, I find the only mitigation in his case is his plea of guilty. I will give him one-third discount.
I sentence you to a term of imprisonment for 8 years and 4 months.
Background of Leung Chun-ming
As said before, although he had a clear record, I am not going to reduce the 12-year starting point in his case. In mitigation, it was submitted he only realised his accomplice was carrying a knife when they were approaching the victims. He did not know what was in the bag and he was only taken to the scene of crime shortly before the offence. As indicated earlier, I do not accept this and invited him to take up the opportunity of conducting a Newton hearing. That was declined.
In any event, I also take the view that he could have withdrawn on seeing the knife was produced, but he did not. I have also read the mitigation letters submitted to me on his behalf. In particular, the letter from the Hong Kong Christian Service. However, the only mitigation in his case is also his plea of guilty, so I will give him one-third discount.
Leung Chun-ming, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment for 8 years.