HKSAR v. Lau Ka-lok

DCCC 288/2022

[2023] HKDC 280

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 288 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Attempted robbery". He tried to rob a convenience store with an 8-inch knife in the early hours.

Summary of Facts

2.The offence took place at a 7-Eleven store situated at Ground Floor, No.80 Nathan Road, Tsim Sha Tsui ("the Store").

3.About 2:10 a.m. on 2 December 2021, Madam So (PW1)  was working alone at the cashier counter of the Store.  A male wearing a black face mask, a long-sleeved hooded sweatshirt ("the Hoodie"), dark blue jeans and black sneakers (WP)  came in.  He asked PW1 about the price of ice cream and requested her to go to a corner of the Store.  There, WP took out an 8-inch knife, declared robbery and pointed the knife at PW1.  He ordered PW1 to open the door of the office.  PW1 complied but told WP that there was no money inside.  WP then asked her to return to the cashier counter.

4.At that time, PW1 saw a male customer coming into the Store.  She then shouted "Robbery".  WP ran outside and fled towards Nathan Road (northbound).  CCTV footage captured WP leaving the Store at 2:11 a.m. that night.  PW1 alerted the Police.  The Store suffered no loss.

5.The Police analysed the CCTV footage of different locations in the vicinity of the Store.  They traced WP back to a particular room of the Mirador Mansion Apartment situated at Mirador Mansion, which was about 200 metres away from the Store.  CCTV footage also showed that about 2:24 a.m. on the same day (i.e. 13 minutes after WP had left the Store), WP appeared at Haiphong Road wearing a black long-sleeved PUMA T-shirt ("the T-shirt")  instead of the Hoodie.

6.About 12:44 p.m. on 2 December 2021, DSgt 3041 saw the defendant coming out of the Mirador Mansion Apartment and arrested him.  Upon search, a room card ("the Card")  was found on the defendant.

7.CCTV footage of Chungking Mansions, which were about 100 metres away from Mirador Mansion, was analysed. The Police traced the defendant back to Delta Hotel situated at 8^th Floor, Block A of Chungking Mansions.  Records of Delta Hotel showed that the defendant had checked into Room 845 ("the Room")  at 8:45 a.m. on 2 December 2021.  The Police entered the Room using the Card and conducted a search.  The T-shirt, a pair of dark blue jeans and a pair of black sneakers were found in the Room.

8.At an identification parade[1] held in the morning on 3 December 2021, PW1 positively identified the defendant as WP.

9.The defendant now admits that he was WP, who attempted to rob PW1 in the Store as described in the preceding paragraphs.

Mitigation & Sentence

10.The defendant is 36 and single. He has 10 conviction records, which included 2 "Robbery" offences, 7 "Theft" offences and 4 violence-related offences.  Defence counsel Mr. Chan informed me that the defendant resides alone in a hotel room.

11.In mitigation, Mr. Chan submitted that the defendant was a driver of an ice cream company, earning about $30,000 per month.  In July 2020, he had a traffic accident as a taxi passenger and sustained serious neck and back injuries.  Owing to his injuries, the defendant was unemployed at the time of the offence.  Mr. Chan mentioned that the defendant also suffers from cystitis, which is likely to be the result of his ketamine abuse.  Finally, Mr. Chan stressed that the defendant acted alone and the robbery was not well-planned.  Furthermore, the Store suffered no loss; PW1 was not injured; and the incident lasted only for a minute.

12. Time after time, the court has expressed in very clear terms that being in financial difficulty (however serious)  is no mitigating factor for committing a crime. A clear message must be conveyed to the general public that robbery is a serious crime and that the offenders would most certainly be punished by long-term imprisonment.

13. According to the Court of Appeal's decision in Mo Kwong Sang v The Queen [1981] HKLR 610, the appropriate sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery where the accused carried a knife or other dangerous weapon which he displayed to his victim, should be 5 years' imprisonment. In the present case, the defendant has convictions of 2 "Robbery" offences (dated 2000 and 2002 respectively)  and 7 "Theft" offences (dated 2000, 2016 and 2018). Also, he robbed a convenience store, which by itself is an aggravating factor[2].

14. It is unfortunate that the defendant injured his neck and back in a traffic accident as a taxi passenger, but he has the right to pursue a civil claim to obtain financial compensation. On the other hand, he can blame no one but himself for his cystitis. I am aware that the defendant's "Robbery" convictions took place 20 years ago, yet I cannot overlook the vulnerability of PW1 and the nature of a convenience store, especially in the early hours.

15. Having balanced all factors, I consider a starting point of 5 years and 3 months' imprisonment just and appropriate. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 42 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 42 months' imprisonment. I invite the Commissioner of Correctional Services to arrange for the defendant to continue to receive the necessary treatment for his existing medical conditions.