HKSAR v WONG YIU KEI

DCCC 1114/2024

[2025] HKDC 1330

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1114 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Charge

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to one count of attempted robbery. 

Facts

2.  On 20 March 2024, at around 12.45 pm, the defendant walked into a 7-Eleven convenience shop in On Ting Estate, Tuen Mun. He approached the cashier counter and pulled out a knife, which was approximately 12 inches long, from his bag.  He pointed the knife at the female cashier.  The defendant declared robbery and demanded $6,000.  The cashier was frightened and started to back away from the counter.  She moved slowly backwards while facing the defendant, who kept brandishing the knife at the female staff and repeating his demand of $6,000.

3.  At this juncture, the store manager came out from the back office.  He stood in front of the cashier.  He had picked up two plastic baskets and held them in front of his chest as a shield.  The manager and the cashier then walked backwards slowly into the office.  They then locked the door and called the police.

4.  CCTV captured the incident and showed that the defendant was still hovering around outside the store for a few minutes before he fled.  The police later arrived.  They located the defendant in the vicinity about 10 minutes later.  Under arrest and under caution, the defendant stated he had no money for rent, so he had no option but to rob. 

5.  The police found in the defendant’s flat the knife he used in the robbery.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview, he told the police how the incident happened.  He also told the police that he had gone back home to put down his bag and knife. He said the knife was a cooking knife which his wife bought some time ago.

6.  In an identification parade on 22 March 2024, the female cashier positively identified the defendant.

Record

7.  The defendant has only one previous record. In August 2021, he was convicted of several offences relating to driving.

Mitigation

8.  Defence counsel says the defendant is now aged 52, married and living with his wife. He had been a transportation worker for many years but lost his job in January 2024. At the time of the offence, the defendant was under financial pressure. Out of desperation, he committed the present offence.  Counsel says the defendant is now deeply remorseful.

9.  Counsel hands up letters from the defendant and his wife. They plead for leniency from the court. 

10.  Counsel refers to the case of Mo Kwong Sang [1981] 1 HKLRD 610 where the Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing guidelines for robbery offences.

11.  Counsel points out that nobody was hurt in the case. No actual violence was used.  The defendant only demanded $6,000 and he backed off as soon as he was confronted by the manager.  And the defendant frankly admitted his guilt upon arrest. 

12.  Counsel says the offence was not a sophisticated one but rather one without premeditation.  She asked the court to be as lenient as possible in sentencing. 

Sentence

13.  The robbery in this case was not a sophisticated one but the defendant certainly acted with some premeditation.  He brought a knife from his home to facilitate the crime. 

14.  The defendant has only one previous record.  It was relatively minor and not similar to the present case at all. The defendant was apparently under financial pressure at that time and he desperately needed money. Yet all these can hardly be counted as mitigation.

15.  It is true that nobody was hurt in the case. No actual violence was used.  The defendant only demanded $6,000 and backed off as soon as he was confronted by the manager, and he frankly admitted his guilt upon arrest.  Nevertheless, the defendant used a knife, which was a sharp one, in the course of his crime.  He threatened the staff there with the knife. They must have been frightened a lot. The defendant was only unsuccessful in his misdeed because the manager had the courage not to succumb to the defendant’s demand.

16.  In the case of Mo Kwong Sang, the Court of Appeal said the appropriate sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery where the accused carried a knife or other dangerous weapon, excluding firearms, which he displayed to his victim should be 5 years’ imprisonment. But if such a robbery also involved invasion of private premises, a sentence of 6 years would be appropriate.

17.  In the present case, I would adopt 6 years’ imprisonment as the starting point. The defendant’s only mitigation is his early plea. He is entitled to a one-third discount. I thus send the defendant to prison for 4 years.