COURT: The defendant, Wong Chung-kwok, was charged with one count of robbery, contrary to section 10(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210. He pleaded guilty before a magistrate and was committed to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for sentence.
The Admitted Facts
On 18 January 2025, the 77-year-old victim, I will call her “victim”, who lived alone in a flat in Tsui Ning Garden, Tuen Mun, went to a bank in Tuen Mun Town Plaza Phase II, and withdrew $4,000 cash for lai see money. The victim put the cash into a green sling bag, and then went to a supermarket after leaving the bank. And then she left the shopping mall and took the light rail back home.
And then at around 12.55 pm, the victim took the lift to go home. Upon opening the metal gate and the wooden door of the flat, the defendant approached the victim from behind and pointed a pair of scissors at her neck. The scissors were red in colour and 20-centimetre long. The defendant told the victim to go inside and the victim turned around and saw the defendant was not wearing a mask.
Feeling threatened, the victim complied and entered the flat with the defendant. And the defendant closed the wooden door. Noticing the CCTV installed in the living room, the defendant cut its electrical wire with the scissors and demanded money from the victim. The victim surrendered $1,200 cash from her sling bag to the defendant. The defendant then cut the phone strap hanging on the victim’s neck and took away her phone. And the defendant pushed the victim onto the floor and snatched the sling bag before fleeing. And the victim shouted for help and the case was reported to the police by her neighbour.
The following items were stolen:
A sling bag valued at $1,000 containing the following items: one reusable bag; one hand cream; and one lip balm.
And also there was one iPhone 12 valued at $7,000; Hong Kong dollar cash $5,200; one elderly octopus card with $170 in balance; one non-personalised octopus card with $169.5 in balance; and one HSBC passbook belonging to the victim; a blue coin purse; a bundle of two keys; a piece of cloth for cleaning glasses; and two transparent resealable bags printed with the victim’s name containing pills.
The total estimated value of the stolen properties was $13,819.50, and all the items were later recovered. Some were from the person of the defendant, some were in a refuse collection point.
The victim received medical treatment and she sustained tenderness and bruising over right middle finger as well as tenderness over her left foot.
The defendant was located in the afternoon of 18 January 2025 on the upper deck of Route 60X bus proceeding from Tuen Mun Town Centre towards the direction of Mei Foo. The defendant was escorted to No. 688 Nathan Road, Mong Kok, for inquiries. Upon search, stolen items were found on the defendant and also a pair of scissors. The defendant was arrested. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he snatched the bag of the female because he was indebted and had no intention to harm her with the scissors.
During a subsequent cautioned video-recorded interview, the defendant stated the following:
He did not know the victim and was loitering in HSBC in Tuen Mun Town Plaza Centre when he saw the victim withdrawing money. He followed the victim all the way to the victim’s home. He tapped on the back of the victim after the victim opened the iron gate and the wooden door and the victim knew that he was robbing her. The victim took out a small purse and gave him about $1,000. The defendant knew the victim had just withdrawn money and believed the victim had not given him all the money.
He and the victim entered the flat and he closed the door. He cut the wire of the CCTV in the living room. He told the victim to surrender all the money otherwise he would tie her up. The defendant also told the victim to surrender the iPhone. The defendant cut the strap hanging on the victim’s neck and snatched the iPhone away. The defendant asked the victim to open the wooden door. He cut the strap of the victim’s shoulder bag and the victim fell to the ground when he pulled the bag away from her.
He took the stairs to leave the building and took a cab to Tuen Mun Town Plaza where he threw other valuable items into a rubbish bin at the male toilet on the podium. He turned off the victim’s iPhone and threw away the SIM card. He got on a route 60X bus to Mong Kok and was then arrested.
The money recovered from him including one $1,000 note, ten $100 notes and $20 banknotes belonged to the victim. And the old bank notes around $200 belonged to him. The scissors were used as his working tool and he always kept the scissors in his bag.
During an identification parade on 19 January 2025, the victim positively identified the defendant.
The authorities submitted by the prosecution
The prosecution submitted two authorities. The first one is the well-known case of Mo Kwong Sang, in which the Court of Appeal gave sentencing guidelines for armed robberies where the accused used a knife or other dangerous weapon excluding firearm, where the knife or dangerous weapon was displayed to the victim, the starting point is 5 years. If invasion of private premises occurred, a sentence of 6 years would be appropriate. Where physical violence is used, 7 years should be considered. If there are other aggravating factors, then the sentence should be increased.
The second case was HKSAR v Yang Xingyun, the defendant pleaded guilty to a number of offences, which included robbery, theft, and obtaining property by deception. He was a two-way permit holder from Chinese Mainland who had come to rob, targeting single women. The defendant followed the victim and forced his way into her hotel room. There, he subjected the victim to force by throwing her onto the bed, tying her up, punching, assaulting her and putting stuff into her eye. And also blindfolding her with adhesive tape, gagging her, pouring liquid into her mouth which she managed to spit out. The liquid was subsequently found to contain Estazolam which is a sedative, capable of causing somnolence, headache and asthenia. The defendant forced the victim to reveal information in relation to her bank card or her credit card. The defendant left with the victim’s mobile phone and before he left, he threatened that he would return to cut off her ears should the information she provided proved to be wrong.
The defendant withdrew money from the victim’s bank account and used her credit card to make purchase before fleeing back to Chinese Mainland. The victim was kept captive for almost 10 hours by the defendant. She finally managed to free herself and seek help from the hotel staff. The victim suffered both physical injuries and psychological trauma. In that case, for the offence of robbery, the trial judge referred to the case of Mo Kwong Sang and listed many aggravating factors, including the following.
The defendant entered Hong Kong for the specific purpose of committing robbery and theft and then left Hong Kong. The robbery was well-planned and committed in a hotel room which is akin to domestic premises. He stalked and monitored the victim. He was stronger than the victim and displayed a readiness to use violence. He used substance to affect the victim’s sight. He administered a drug to her, blindfolded her and tied her up. He kept her captive for almost 10 hours while he was in the room with her. He assaulted her, inflicted actual bodily harm. He threatened the victim with physical violence. He obtained password to the victim’s credit card by way of threat, and the victim suffered consequential physical and psychological harm.
The trial judge adopted a starting point of 11 years and 6 months for the robbery charge. The defendant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused and the appeal dismissed.
Authorities submitted by the defence
The defence also relied on the case of Mo Kwong Sang. Another case referred to by the defence is actually a High Court case, HKSAR v Lee Wai Yip, Ray. The defendant was charged with two counts of robbery. The first one was inside a lift of a residential building. The defendant snatched the victim’s handbag after pushing the victim on the shoulder and putting a cloth with smell of thinner over her face. The second also took place in a lift. The defendant used his hand to cover the victim’s eyes and ran away with the bag of the victim.
The defendant had a string of previous convictions. The trial judge adopted a starting point of 4½ years for the 1st charge and 4 years and 3 months for the 2nd.
Background and Mitigation
The defendant was born in April 1975 and is now 51 years of age. He is a first offender. He claimed to have received education up to diploma level for computer in Hong Kong. He had been working as a computer technician from 1999 to 2005. He then worked as a staff of a pet funeral service company and in 2018 he took over the pet funeral service company until his arrest.
The defence counsel, Ms Maria So, submitted that the defendant spent money on renovating a new premises for the pet cremation business and had to take out a loan. After the renovation, business was not good and he faced with financial difficulties, in that he had to repay the loan, pay rent to the landlord and wages to his staff. The defendant made a foolish decision on the material day and committed the offence without considering the consequences. Ms So submitted that the defendant is very remorseful and he apologises to the victim for what he had done. Ms So conceded there are aggravating factors in the present case. The victim was 77 years old. The offence happened in a residential premises. A pair of scissors 20-centimetre-long was displayed. The victim suffered injuries.
On the other hand, counsel submitted the victim was not tied up. The whole incident lasted a short time. All lost items were recovered. There was no evidence that the defendant planned the robbery. The defendant admitted he was loitering and the scissors were his working tool for cutting tapes when he had to deal with the corpse of the dead animal.
Ms So submitted the strongest mitigation is the defendant’s guilty plea. The defendant asked this Court to give him a lenient sentence. The defendant wrote to this Court expressing his remorse. And he claimed he was willing to shoulder the consequences of his misdeed. Nevertheless, the defendant urged this Court to take into consideration he is a first offender and to give him a chance to start afresh.
The defendant’s mother also wrote to this Court asking for leniency. The defendant was described as well-behaved and a filial son who faced financial problems after the pandemic and wave of immigration. Both she and the defendant’s father asked this Court to give the defendant a chance and to sentence him leniently.
Consideration for sentence
A person convicted of robbery upon indictment is liable to imprisonment for life. Adopting the guidelines of Mo Kwong Sang, the defendant used a weapon, that is a pair of scissors, and robbed an aged single lady at her own home. Violence was also used on the victim although not with the scissors. Looking at the circumstances of the robbery, there were some aggravating factors similar to the case of Yang Xingyun. The defendant loitered in a bank and targeted an aged single lady who had just withdrawn money. He followed the victim all the way to her home.
Although the defendant said during the recorded interview that he only tapped on the victim’s neck, but the admitted fact showed that he had pointed the scissors at the victim’s neck. Violence was used against the victim and he had cut the wire of the CCTV as well to avoid detection. I do bear in mind that the circumstances and extent of force in the present robbery is not as serious as those in the case of Yang Xingyun. It is also fortunate for the victim that the defendant was intercepted and arrested by police before the defendant had the chance to spend her money.
I accept the defendant is truly remorseful. I take into account the fact that the defendant was of good character until he turned 50, and it was out of desperation that he committed the present offence which appears to be out of character. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, and taking the most lenient view I am able to do, I am of the view that a starting point of 7 years is appropriate here. The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity and is entitled to a full one-third discount. This discounted sentence is 4 years 8 months. There are no other mitigating factors to further reduce the sentence.
So for the offence of robbery, the defendant is sentenced to 4 years 8 months’ imprisonment.
