HKSAR v. Huang Weidong

DCCC 9/2025

[2025] HKDC 2106

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 9 OF 2025

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Robbery". He robbed a passer-by of her handbag near a bus stop in Sheung Shui.

Summary of Facts

2.The offence took place near a bus stop at Lung Sum Avenue in Sheung Shui ("the Location").

3.About 10:56 p.m. on 30 September 2024, Madam Lam (PW1) alighted from a bus near the Location.  She then walked along the street, checking her mobile phone from time to time. Suddenly, the defendant approached PW1 and tried to snatch her handbag, which she was carrying across her body.  PW1 resisted, and the defendant continued pulling her handbag.  The strap of the handbag snapped and PW1 fell onto the ground. The defendant took PW1's handbag and fled on a bicycle.

4.PW1's handbag (valued at $1,900) contained 2 Octopus cards (each having a stored value of about $150), a key bag, a HKID Card, a Home Visit Permit, a Telsa key card, 5 bank cards, a driving licence, a library card, a membership card and $300 cash.

5.CCTV footage captured part of the incident from a distance.

Arrest

6.About 9:40 p.m. on 5 October 2024, PC 12537 (PW2) stopped the defendant at Lung Sum Avenue in relation to another "Theft" case.  He escorted the defendant to his home at Tin Yee House, Tin Ping Estate.  A house search was conducted.  PW1's handbag, HKID card, Home Visit Permit, Telsa key card, 5 bank cards, driving licence, library card and membership card were found in the defendant's home.  In other words, PW1's 2 Octopus cards, key bag and $300 cash were not recovered.

7.Under caution, the defendant admitted having robbed PW1's handbag because he owed other people money.  In his record of interview, the defendant claimed that he had spent the cash (contained in PW1's handbag) on food.

Mitigation & Sentence

8.The defendant is 54 and has 5 conviction records, which included 2 "Theft" offences, and 6 other offences.  Defence counsel Mr. Kwan informed me that the defendant is divorced with no children.  He was a causal cleaning worker/driver earning about $10,000 per month.

9.In mitigation, Mr. Kwan submitted that PW1 is unwilling to give evidence for the prosecution.  He did not even receive PW1's witness statement until 14 November 2025 (the day when the defendant formally entered his plea).  Yet, the defendant has all along been willing and prepared to plead guilty to the charge.  Furthermore, Mr. Kwan submitted that the defendant suffers from diabetes and another chronic disease.

10.Regarding the defendant's previous convictions, Mr. Kwan explained that Item 4 on his criminal record (a "Theft" offence; FLCC 2118/2024) is the reason why PW2 stopped the defendant on the street[1]. The defendant then committed the present offence whilst on court bail for Item 5 on his criminal record (also a "Theft" offence; FLCC 1628/2024).

11.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 be punished by long-term imprisonment.

12.Mr. Kwan has referred me to the Court of Appeal's decision in HKSAR v Ku Kwok Wai [2012] 4 HKLRD 563. The present case is an unarmed robbery, but it is more serious than snatching an iPhone from a 17-year-old girl in a lift lobby. The facts of the present case are more akin to those in HKSAR v Ting Chiu & another [2003] 3 HKLRD 378. The defendant tried to snatch PW1's handbag. The strap of her handbag snapped, causing PW1 to fall onto the ground.

13.I consider a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment appropriate and just. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 32 months. I am aware of the defendant's willingness to plead guilty to the charge despite lacking evidence from PW1. I will grant him an additional discount of 2 months[2]. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 30 months' imprisonment.