HKSAR v. Lilif Haryanti

DCCC 619/2024

[2025] HKDC 242

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 619 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of Robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

Facts

2.At all material times KUNTARE Uun (“the victim”)  and the defendant, both Indonesians, were working as domestic helpers in Hong Kong.

3.Since the two of them came to know each other on 3 October 2023, they have had financial dealings with each other.

4.Around 2 pm on 24 December 2023, while the victim was shopping at a shop in Lok Fu Bazaar of Lok Fu Plaza, she met the defendant and had a dispute with her over their financial dealings.

5.During the dispute, the defendant pushed the victim and pulled her headscarf and hair, put her in a chokehold and snatched from the victim a mobile phone together with its phone case which contained the victim’s Octopus card.

6.The victim suffered no injury but had a mild headache. The matter was reported to the police.

7.The incident was captured by the CCTV camera outside the shop.

8.Around 1:15 pm on 27 December 2023, the defendant was arrested in her employer’s residence. The victim’s mobile phone together with its case and the Octopus card and a hoodie that the defendant wore at the time of the incident were found and seized by the police.

9.Under caution at the scene of arrest, the defendant admitted that she had pushed the victim twice and taken her mobile phone, and that it was wrong to do so.

10.During a video-recorded interview held under caution, the defendant said when she went to the Lok Fu Bazaar around 2 pm on 24 December 2023, she saw the victim and asked her to repay a loan. When the victim denied owing her any money, they got into an argument. She pushed the victim and pulled her headscarf twice and grabbed her neck once in order to take the victim’s phone. She left after snatching her phone.

Defendant’s Background

11.The defendant is 33 years old. She was born and raised in Indonesia, where she graduated from secondary school. She came to Hong Kong in 2018 to work as a domestic helper. She is married with an 8-year-old son. Her husband and son, who depend on her for financial support, live in Indonesia.

12.She has a clear record.

Mitigation

13.According to defence counsel Mr Ah-weng, the incident arose out of financial disputes between the victim and the defendant. In October 2023 the defendant had lent $2,300 to the victim who claimed that her child was sick. The victim promised to repay the loan by instalments of around $500 per month. However, the victim stopped making further payment after repaying $1,200 odd. She even blocked the defendant’s calls when the defendant tried to call her on 21 December 2023 for the next instalment payment. Since then, the defendant was no longer able to contact the victim as she did not know where the victim worked. Thinking that the victim was avoiding payment, the defendant felt betrayed and angry. 

14.When she happened to see the victim on the day of the incident, she had a dispute with her over the loan, lost her self-control and acted in the way she is accused of. She took the victim’s phone in the belief that that phone would have a record of messages showing that the victim still owed her money. She could not resort to her own phone for those messages because she had lost them. That was why she held on to the phone and made no effort whatsoever to sell it.

15.The defendant is now extremely remorseful. Her husband became very depressed when he learned about his wife’s troubles and was recently admitted to the hospital. She also realises that her conviction will put an end to her employment opportunities in Hong Kong.

16.Defence counsel submitted that this is not an ordinary robbery where the victim is robbed by a stranger out of greed. He pointed out that the defendant’s acts were not planned or pre-meditated, were committed by her alone in broad day light in an outburst on impulse. He submitted that this case is of equal or arguably lesser gravity than what the judge in HKSAR v Ku Kwok Wai [2012] 4 HKLRD 563 described as “a step up from theft or snatching”.

Sentencing considerations

17.This is a robbery which did not involve the use or display of any dangerous weapons. The defendant assaulted the victim with her bare hands during the commission of the offence. As such, the starting point for the offence in question should be lower than that for armed robberies[1].

18.In R v Yau Kwok Tung [1987] HKLR 782, a man and his wife were approached in the early hours of the morning by 2 men who, after seeing the couple’s identity cards, searched the husband and took $300 away from him, then snatched the wife’s necklace but returned it to her when told that the necklace was a fake. Delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Roberts CJ said, at p 783I,

“A sentence of four years, in the circumstances of this case, is at the top end of the tariff for robberies where weapons are not displayed. Nevertheless, the offence took place at night, the victims were frightened and we do not regard it as so manifestly excessive that it would be proper for us to interfere with it.”

19.In HKSAR v Lam Ka Hung CACC 294/2003, the female victim had her handbag snatched in the early evening as she made her way to her home in the block of flats in which she lived. She was pushed to the ground where she struggled with the robber and sustained minor injuries. On appeal, the original sentence of 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment after plea was quashed and replaced with one of 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment (ie with 4 years as starting point).

20.In the case of Ku Kwok Wai cited by counsel, a 17-year-old female student was followed by the two defendants when she was returning home at 5 am. While waiting for the lift in the lobby and talking on her phone, she was pushed in the back and her phone snatched from her by D1. D2 was keeping a lookout nearby. No weapon was used. The violence used did not cause any injuries. Both defendants had clear records.  A starting point of 3 years and 3 months before plea adopted by the trial judge was not disturbed on appeal.

21.In HKSAR v Chan Sin Leung CACC 48/2006, a sentence of 4 ½ years’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced with one of 4 years on appeal. The case involved 3 theft charges and one robbery charge. All offences were committed on unsuspecting females whose necklaces were snatched by the appellant who approached them on bicycle. The robbery charge resulted from the fact that the victim of that charge struggled with the appellant who caused marks to her neck when he used force to remove her necklace. The judge adopted 15 months’ imprisonment for each of the theft charges and 3 years imprisonment for the robbery. On appeal, Stock JA (as he then was)  said of the robbery charge that “… it might be said that the facts were not a great deal different from those of the theft charges and that the resulting term for that individual charge was high; nonetheless given the aggravating feature[2] to which we have referred it cannot be said to be in itself manifestly excessive.”

22.This incident arose out of a dispute over money between the parties, and the victim’s phone was snatched by the defendant during the dispute. According to the defendant’s mitigation which I find probable, she took the phone hoping that the messages on it would prove the victim’s indebtedness to her.

23.I accept that the offence was not premeditated. It was an impulsive act committed in the heat of the moment in broad daylight, in a public place and in full view of members of the public.  Except for a minor headache, the assault did not result in injury to the victim.

24.Having considered the above authorities, the rather special circumstances of this case and the defendant’s clear record, I will adopt 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment as the starting point. Her ultimate sentence, after giving a one-third discount for her guilty plea, which is the only effective mitigating factor, is 22 months’ imprisonment.