HKSAR v. Chen Weidong

HCCC 9/2026

[2026] HKCFI 3843

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 9 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery, contrary to sections 10(1) and (2) of Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210 of the Laws of Hong Kong.

PARTICULARS OF CHARGE

2.The Defendant, on 5 September 2018, at Room 3, 8^th Floor, No.116 Fa Yuen Street, Mong Kok, Kowloon, in Hong Kong (“the Premises”) robbed WONG Shing-ying (“PW1”) of cash $3,100 Hong Kong currency and a mobile phone.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

3.PW1 operated a one-woman brothel at the Premises. On 5 September 2018 at about 14:15 hours, PW1 opened the door of the Premises for the Defendant after he rang the doorbell. The Defendant was wearing a blue T-shirt and carrying a dark-coloured bag. Upon his enquiry, PW1 confirmed that she was the one who was in the advertisement on the internet. The Defendant then shouted “robbery” in Cantonese and had her in a tight chokehold. She could not breathe and was terrified. The Defendant then pressed her on the floor with both hands and put his leg on her upper body. PW1 kept moving and tried to push him away, but to no avail. He grabbed hold of PW1’s neck with his left hand and hit her head 3 to 4 times. He then pressed his left hand on her nose and mouth. PW1 bit his finger of his left hand. She did not know whether his finger was injured, but some blood dropped to the floor. As the Defendant continued to press his hand on her nose and mouth, she could not breathe and lost consciousness.

4.PW1 regained consciousness later. She found that both of her hands were tied to the foot of the bed with her nightdress and her legs were also tied with a pink towel. At that time, the Defendant was ransacking the Premises. When he found PW1 had woken up, he told PW1 he had just been released from prison and all he wanted was money. He asked PW1 to keep quiet. He stuffed a plastic bag into PW1’s mouth and asked her where she kept her money. She pointed at her purse and the Defendant took some bank notes from it. He also took her mobile phone and removed the 2 SIM cards.

5.The Defendant then walked towards the door. PW1 thought the Defendant was leaving. She spat out the plastic bag. The Defendant had not left. He took 3 socks and stuffed them into her mouth, took a towel from the toilet and wrapped it around her mouth, and put adhesive tape around the towel so that she could not speak. The Defendant then took a white recycle bag under the bed. About 3 to 4 minutes later, she heard the door was closed and found the Defendant had left. PW1 remained on the floor for another 5 to 6 minutes because she was afraid that the Defendant would return. PW1 then untied herself and sought help from her neighbour (“PW2”) at Room A of the same floor. PW 2 confirmed that PW1 knocked at her door at about 1450 hours and complained to PW2 that she had been robbed. Upon PW1’s request, PW2 made a report to the Police.

6.PW1 had checked the amount of cash she had before the incident and confirmed that the Defendant had robbed HK$3,100 cash and a mobile phone worth HK$5,500. No CCTV camera was installed in the Premises.

7.At about 20:00 hours on 6 September 2018, she found a cutter and a roll of yellow adhesive tape in the Premises, which did not belong to her. The Defendant did not use the cutter or the roll of yellow adhesive tape during the robbery.

8.The following items were seized from the Premises:-

(a) a bloodstain towels with hair were found on the bed and on the floor respectively;

(b) used white adhesive tapes with hair were found on a chair and on the floor;

(c) a roll of white adhesive tape with hair was found on the bed;

(d) a roll of bloodstain tissue paper was found on the floor; and

(e) PW1’s mobile phone case and 2 SIM cards.

9.Medical Report of Accident and Emergency Department of Kwong Wah Hospital (“KWH”) on PW1 reveals that haematoma was found over her scalp. Petechiae was noted over her face. Broken teeth and abrasions of lips were noted. Redness was found over the front of her neck and her wrists. Bruises were noted over her upper arms.

10.Medical Report of Neurosurgery Department of KWH reveals that three teeth of PW1 were dislodged. There were also multiple abrasions over her tongue and lips, circumferential rope marking over her neck, multiple bruising wounds over both hands, both wrists and both arms, and contused right knee. Dental examination reveals retained root 12+ 13+, avulsed socket 11. Extraction of 12+ 13+ was performed.

11.On 25 September 2024, the Defendant was arrested when he entered into Hong Kong via Lo Wu Control Point. In a subsequent video-recorded interview, he stated under caution that:-

(a) He was a two-way permit holder and entered into Hong Kong at about 08:30 hours on 25 September 2024. His two-way permit was issued on 21 August 2015 and was valid until 20 August 2025. He had been to Hong Kong 4-5 times since 2015.

(b) He came to Hong Kong on 4 September 2018 and had about $3,000 cash with him. On 5 September 2018, he looked for a one-woman brothel on the internet and found PW1’s post. He called the number, which was answered by a male. He was informed that $800 would be charged for sexual intercourse.

(c) He then went to the Premises where only PW1 was present. He requested for special sex service and PW1 said $2,500 would be charged. He found it too expensive and wanted to leave. However, PW1 refused to let him go and grabbed hold of his arm. He turned around and hit PW1 near her mouth once forcefully. He recalled that PW1’s mouth bled. As PW1 resisted, bit him forcefully, shouted and tried to get her mobile phone, he was afraid. He grabbed hold of her neck and stuffed some towels into her mouth. He tied her hands and legs up before he left.

(d) After leaving the Premises, he took a taxi to Hung Hom MTR Station where he took a train to Lo Wu and left Hong Kong.

(e) That was his first time going to the Premises. He was present in Mong Kok, at about 14:15 hours on 5 September 2018. He could not remember what clothes he was wearing on that day, but he was carrying a red rucksack which contained his clothes. As his clothes were dirty, he changed his clothes before he left the Premises. He was carrying the same red rucksack when he was arrested.

(f) He identified himself in the CCTV screen captures and photos taken on 5 September 2018. At 15:23 hours on 5 September 2018, he left No. 116 Fa Yuen Street, carrying a white recycle bag which contained his red rucksack. He had changed into another T-shirt. He had taken that white recycle bag from the Premises.

12.Movement records revealed that the Defendant was present in Hong Kong between 14:14 hours on 4 September 2018 and 16:40 hours on 5 September 2018.

13.On 18 November 2024, PW1 positively identified the Defendant at an identification parade as the person who robbed her on 5 September 2018.

14.The Defendant’s DNA was found on the 2 bloodstains of a towel, which was used to stuff PW1’s mouth, and on the bloodstain found on the front side of PW1’s nightdress, which was used to tie PW1’s hands.

15.Taxi driver of DY 2989, stated that the Defendant boarded the taxi at about 15:30 hours on 5 September 2018 near Embankment Road in Mong Kok. He spoke Cantonese and asked to be conveyed to Hung Hom MTR station. He was wearing a face mask, a grey T-shirt and carrying a white bag.

BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

16.The Defendant is 46 years old of age, a father of three children, aged 21, 12 and 9. He was a factory worker earning around RMB$8,000 to RMB$10,000 per month prior to the arrest. At the time he had no criminal record in Hong Kong. Mitigation letters from the Defendant, his wife, his son and his friend have been produced. I have been informed that the Defence undertakes to compensate PW1 in the amount of HK $8,600.00, being the financial loss (i.e. cash and mobile phone) she suffered as a result of the robbery. Arrangements will be made between the defence and the Police for this purpose.

17.Ms. Cindy Lee, counsel for the Defendant, purports to argue that the original purpose of the Defendant’s visit to the Premises was for sex, not robbery, and that it was only after the Defendant saw PW1 and noticed that she looked very different from the pictures in her advertisement that he came up with the idea of robbing her. The Prosecution do not accept that the robbery was not premeditated. The Defendant has elected not to give evidence in this regard.

18.I find the Defendant’s submission unconvincing at all.

19.I would be prepared to give the Defendant the benefit of the doubt and accept that the cutter and the roll of yellow adhesive tape were not the Defendant’s, otherwise he would have used them during the robbery. Yet, there was still ample evidence to show that the robbery was premeditated:-

(a) that the Defendant suddenly came up with the idea of robbing PW1 after finding her unattractive defies common sense;

(b) anyone in the circumstances would have just left;

(c) no one in the circumstances would think of robbing PW1, beating her up and tying her up; and

(d) the fact that the Defendant said to PW1 that he had just been released from prison and all he wanted was money (paragraph 2 of Summary of Facts) shows exactly the purpose of his visit.

20.In paragraph 4.12 of Ms. Lee’s written submission, she appears to rely on alcoholic influence as a mitigating factor. No evidence or authority has been referred to or cited in support of this proposition. Suffice it to say that it is trite that self-induced intoxication is no mitigating factor.

21.I find that the only cogent mitigating factor in the present case is the Defendant’s plea of guilty.

SENTENCE

22.Robbery is a serious offence. Its maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

23.The Defendant was not armed when he committed the robbery. Therefore, the sentencing guideline in Mo Kwong Sang v R [1981] HKLRD 610 should not be applicable.

24.In HKSAR v LimbuBinod [2021] HKCA 1431 at §23, the Court of Appeal held that:-

“In robbery cases, a sentencing court when assessing the starting point to be adopted will take into account aggravating factors or features that reflect the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender, such as the circumstances and location of the robbery, the target of the robbery, the degree of planning and execution involved, the level of force or violence, the extent of the injuries sustained by and impact on a victim or victims, the nature and use of a weapon, the number of offenders, the use of clothing to disguise the identity of the offenders, and the items of property taken.”

25.The Court of Appeal has made it clear on various occasions thatthe sentence for robbery which took place in a one-woman brothel should carry with it a deterrent effect, because sexual workers are vulnerable and should be protected: see HKSAR v Cheng Fuk Wa (鄭福華) CACC 442/2005，HKSAR v Lai Kwok Fai (黎國輝) CACC 346/2008, HKSAR v Tam Kwok Keung CACC 25/2010 and HKSAR v Cheung Yiu Chung (張耀忠) CACC381/2012.

26.In my judgment, quite a number of sentence-enhancing elements exist in the present case:-

(a) the Defendant was a two-way permit holder when he committed the offence (HKSAR v Obiagwu Oluchukwu Christian [2011] 1 HKC 453);

(b) PW1 was a lone woman in private premises;

(c) she was a vulnerable target of robbery because of the nature of her trade;

(d) the Defendant gained entry to the Premises by posing as a customer;

(e) the use of excessive violence on a female which resulted in loss of three teeth, haematoma over her head, and loss of consciousness, inter alia;

(f) repeated use of excessive violence after PW1 regained her consciousness;

(g) the Defendant kept attacking PW1’s throat, neck, face and head, which are all weak and vulnerable parts of the human body;

(h) the robbery lasted for more than half an hour, during which the Defendant showed no mercy on PW1 whatsoever;

(i) the Defendant brought with him another T-shirt and changed into it before leaving the Premises, which was clearly an attempt to disguise his identity; and

(j) taking a white plastic bag from the Premises and using it to cover his own red rucksack when leaving the Premises is clearly another trick of his to hide his identity.

27.By reason of the matters aforediscussed, I find the Defendant’s behaviour particularly cowardly and this robbery particularly offensive.

28.Having considered all the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 8 years. In view of his early plea, he would be entitled to a full one-third discount. The sentence is therefore reduced to 5 years and 4 months. This is the sentence I pass on the Defendant.

Ms. Clara Ma, Senior Public Prosecutor of Department of Justice, for the Prosecution

Ms. Cindy Lee, instructed by W. K. To & Co. Solicitors, assigned by DLA, for the Defendant