This defendant pleaded guilty to an attempted robbery where he and four others decided to rob a passer-by in the early hours of the morning on 11 February 2020. They chose a victim, a 56-year-old lady walking her dog. They tried to rob her but failed; they fled when another person appeared. The victim managed to run away, but not before she tripped and suffered slight injuries.
Nothing was stolen from her. There was CCTV footage of a chase and one male can be seen brandishing a knife. This defendant claimed to have been recruited to help rob this victim; his role was to be a lookout.
I gave a full summary of the facts involving this defendant and all other defendants, as well as all other charges, when I sentenced the other defendants on 28 March 2023. I do not intend to repeat myself here. I took into account the guidelines for an armed robbery, the authority of R v Mo Kwong Sang [1981] HKLR 610.
A 5-year starting point appropriate for an armed robbery would be enhanced by the aggravating factor of multiple robbers. However, having heard mitigation for the 8th defendant, I did adjourn his sentence for detention and training centre reports. Even though there were other co-defendants as young as the 8th defendant in early 2020, I did not call for reports for any other defendant in this case. I explained in full detail why I did not call for any reports and imposed an immediate term of imprisonment for the others.
For this defendant, I took into account he was 16 at the time of this offence. He was facing only one charge, had a clear record at the time, was still a student then and is still a student now, and lastly the fact that he did make a non-prejudicial statement and tried his best to provide some information to the police about other young robbers.
I have heard full mitigation from counsel, seen mitigation letters written by the defendant himself, his parents, social workers and teachers. I have now taken into account the contents of these reports. He is not medically fit for detention centre but mentally and physically fit for detention in a training centre. Moreover, there is a place available for him.
An attempted robbery by multiple offenders and a weapon displayed to the victim is a very serious offence. But for his age and other mitigating factors, the 8th defendant would be looking at a starting point of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. To consider anything other than a term of imprisonment is rare when deterrence has to be prioritised over strong mitigating factors such as a young age of an offender. Public interest requires an imposition of a substantial term of imprisonment unless there are particularly powerful reasons to consider otherwise.
This defendant has a supportive family and a track record of sorts of trying to better himself academically and educationally. He has been hampered with a diagnosis at an early age of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which appears to have been untreated since 2015.
A reading of the letters submitted in mitigation plus his age at the time of the offence convinced me to consider the recommendation of a training centre order appropriate for this individual. He did try to give some assistance with a non-prejudicial statement to the police, but nothing came of it. That attempt in itself is worthy of consideration under the circumstances.
Therefore, after careful consideration for Charge 10, I sentence you, the 8th defendant, to a training centre order.