HKSAR v. Lam Ka Lok and Another

DCCC 761/2024

[2025] HKDC 594

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 761 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The first defendant and the second defendant have been jointly charged and pleaded guilty to one count of robbery[1] (the first charge).  The second defendant also pleaded guilty to one count of driving without a valid licence[2] (the second charge)  and one count of using a motor vehicle without third party insurance[3] (the third charge).

Facts

2.All the details of the case have been set out in the Summary of Facts dated 2 April 2025 as admitted by the defendants.  I am not going to repeat all the facts here.

3.In gist, on 17 January 2024 at about 2110 hours, while the victims Mr. Leung and Mr. Lam were on board a private vehicle bearing the registration mark UN3318 (“the vehicle”)  at a metered carpark near Kwu Tung Market, they were approached by the two defendants.  The second defendant placed a sickle on Mr. Leung’s neck while the first defendant held a sickle and stood near Mr. Lam.  Both victims were told to leave the vehicle and they alighted from the vehicle accordingly.

4.The second defendant then went to the driver’s seat of the vehicle while the first defendant went to the back seats of the vehicle.  The second defendant then drove the vehicle away.  The case was then reported to the police.

5.The estimated value of the vehicle is HK$63,000.  At the material time, properties (estimated total value of about HK$210,000)  as set out in the particulars of the first charge were in the vehicle when the second defendant drove it away. 

6.About 30 minutes later, the vehicle was found crashed into a lamppost on Castle Peak Road (Kwu Tung), which was about 1.2km away from the metered carpark.  The vehicle was seriously damaged.  A sickle and the first defendant’s mobile phone were found inside the vehicle. 

7.The dash camera of the vehicle captured part of the incident.

8.At about 2228 hours on the same day, the first defendant was arrested for robbery.  Under caution, he denied committing the offence.

9.In subsequent interviews, the first defendant admitted under caution that a male asked him to help and he knew about the robbery when he arrived at the scene.  The two defendants met up with 2 males near Kwu Tung Market at about 2100 hours on the material day.  Both defendants were each given a sickle.  They then approached the two victims and told them to leave the vehicle.  After the victims left the vehicle, they drove the vehicle away. Shortly after, the vehicle crashed into a lamppost and the first defendant was injured.

10.On 3 February 2024, the second defendant was arrested.  Under caution, the second defendant admitted that he committed the robbery with the first defendant and other persons. 

11.In subsequent interview, the second defendant admitted under caution that at about 2045 hours on the material day, a male drove the two defendants to Kwu Tung Market.  Both defendants were each given a sickle.  He pulled Mr. Leung out from the nearside passenger’s seat.  He then got into the driver’s seat and drove the vehicle away.  Shortly after, he went into a car accident.

12.Investigation reveals that the second defendant did not hold a valid driving licence at the material time.

13.Both defendants were identified by the victims in subsequent identification parades.

Mitigation

A. The first defendant

14.The first defendant is aged 38.  He is single and lived with his parents and his elder sister prior to the arrest.  His father is retired and will undergo heart operation in May 2025.  He worked in various jobs including kitchen assistant, salesperson, watchmaker and delivery driver.  His last employment was construction worker earning about HK$14,000 per month.  He had been unemployed for several months prior to the offence.   He has two previous conviction records, all relating to violence.

15.It was submitted that the first defendant agreed with friends to assist with debt collection.  He never intended to brandish any weapon or harm anyone.  He was handed a sickle at the scene by a friend.  He did brandish the sickle to tell Mr. Lam to alight, which Mr. Lam did.  No violence was used. After the two victims alighted, it was the second defendant who drove the vehicle away.  The first defendant was injured as a result of the car accident.  His injuries are a constant reminder to him of this case.  It was further submitted that the first defendant acted stupidly and did not gain anything from commission of the offence.

16.The first defendant did not dispute the value of the vehicle or items inside the vehicle.  However, he did not take any of those items. 

17.Mitigation letters show the first defendant is now very remorseful for what he had done and his family wished that he would be given a lenient sentence.

18.The defence referred to Mo Kwong Sang v The Queen [1981] HKLR 610 and submitted the usual sentence for an ordinary case of robbery where a knife or other dangerous weapon is displayed to the victim is 5 years’ imprisonment.

19.Although the first defendant has been jointly charged with the second defendant and he has 2 previous convictions, it is hoped that this Court would not increase the starting point for these reasons.

B. The second defendant

20.The second defendant is aged 31.  He is single and lived with his parents before arrest.  He has a girlfriend with stable relationship for more than 4 years.  He had been working as a transportation worker earning about HK$16,000 per month.  Since June 2022, he became unemployed.

21.For the first charge, the defence referred to the case of Mo Kwong Sang and submitted that the usual starting point of 5 years should be adopted given there was no violence.  It was suggested that as the offence was committed while the second defendant was on bail for another offence, the starting point for the first charge should be enhanced by 3 months. 

22.For the second charge, the defence referred to a District Court case[4] and submitted that this Court may consider a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment.

23.For the third charge, the defence also referred to a District Court case[5] and suggested this Court may consider adopting 4.5 months’ imprisonment as starting point and a disqualification period of 2 years. 

24.Finally, the defence hoped this Court would order part of the sentences to be served concurrently when considering the totality principle.

Sentence

25.The first defendant has 2 previous conviction records relating to violence.  Given the relatively minor nature of the 2 previous convictions and that those offences were committed over 5 years ago, I will not consider those records when sentencing.

26.For the second defendant, as his previous conviction records are not of similar nature as the present offences, I will not consider those records when sentencing.

27.Both defendants pleaded guilty to the offence(s), they are entitled to the usual 1/3 discount.  Apart from their guilty plea, there is no other mitigating factor justifying further reduction in their sentences.

A. The first charge

28.The sentencing guidelines in respect of the offence of robbery are well-settled.  According to the guidelines, for armed robbery with display of weapon, the starting point should be 5 years’ imprisonment[6]. With the presence of aggravating factors, such as the presence of more than one person in the group of robbers, the sentence should be increased. 

29.In the present case, the robbery involved display of weapon with no violence.  I consider the appropriate starting point to be 5 years’ imprisonment.  As the offence was committed by the two defendants jointly, the starting point should be adjusted upward by 3 months to 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.  Since the second defendant committed this offence while on court bail for another offence, the starting point should be further increased by 3 months.  Given the defendants’ plea, the sentence for both defendants will be reduced by 1/3.  Therefore, the sentence for the first defendant is 42 months’ imprisonment while the sentence for the second defendant is 44 months’ imprisonment.

B. The second and third charges

30.This is the first conviction of the second defendant in respect of offences which are the subject matter of the second and third charges.  The second defendant does not hold a valid driving licence.  Driving without a valid driving licence and third party insurance is an irresponsible act as his failure to drive properly may lead to serious consequences including serious injuries to other road users.  Further, the injured party may be left without recourse to compensation.  In fact, the second defendant’s driving  did result in an accident causing serious injuries to the first defendant.  In light of the circumstances of this case, I consider imprisonment is the appropriate sentence for both charges.

31.For the second charge, the appropriate starting point is 1 month’s imprisonment.  As this offence was committed while the second defendant was on court bail for another offence, the starting point should be enhanced by 0.5 month.  Given the second defendant’s plea, the sentence is reduced to 1 month’s imprisonment. 

32.For the third charge, the appropriate starting point is 2.5 months’ imprisonment.  It is further enhanced by 0.5 month for the fact that the second defendant committed this offence while on court bail for another offence. Given the second defendant’s plea, the sentence is reduced to 2 months’ imprisonment.  Further, there will be disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a period of 12 months.

33.To sum up, the sentence for the first defendant is 42 months’ imprisonment.  For the 3 charges faced by the second defendant, the sentences are 44 months’, 1 month’s and 2 months’ imprisonment respectively.  Having considered the totality principle, the sentences for the 3 charges will run concurrently, making a total sentence of 44 months’ imprisonment.  In addition, there is a disqualification order for 12 months.