HKSAR v. Wong Kin Ming

DCCC 348/2025

[2026] HKDC 1691

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 348 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.Mr Wong pleaded guilty before me to 4 charges on a Charge Sheet as follows.

2.Charge 1 is Attempted robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and sections 159G and 159J of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.  Particulars are that he, on 13 October 2024, at the junction of Lai Chi Kok Road and Kweilin Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, together with Chan Kwong Kee, attempted to rob Kwan Mei Yuk.

3.Charge 2 is Possession of an offensive weapon in public place, contrary to section 33(1)  and (2)  of the Public Order Ordinance, Cap 245.  Particulars are that he, on the same day, at the same place, in Hong Kong, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, had with him an offensive weapon, namely one knife.

4.Charge 3 is Theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.  Particulars are that he, on the same day, in Hong Kong, together with Chan Kwong Kee, stole one light goods vehicle with chassis number WF01XXTTG1KC33381, property belonging to Cheung Chun Keung.

5.Charge 4 is Forgery of documents, contrary to section 111(1)(a)  of the Road Traffic Ordinance, Cap 374.  Particulars are that he, on the same day, in Hong Kong, with intent to deceive, used one pair of number plates with registration mark ZJ7506 on a light goods vehicle with chassis number WF01XXTTG1KC33381.

Facts admitted by Mr Wong

6.On 13 October 2024, at about 9:02 pm, Kwan Mei Yuk (PW1), a staff member of a licensed money exchange company at Lai Chi Kok Road, Sham Shui Po, finished work and was walking past the junction of Lai Chi Kok Road and Kweilin Street (“the Junction”)  while carrying in her handbag the daily cash turnover of the company of around $1 million towards her nearby residence as per her daily routine.

7.Mr Wong suddenly approached from behind and attempted to snatch PW1’s handbag.  PW1 resisted and screamed for help.  Mr Wong pushed PW1 to the floor while continuing to pull the handbag from PW1.  The struggle attracted passersby.

8.PW3 came forward to stop Mr Wong by pushing the latter to the ground. Mr Wong took out a knife (about 15 cm long)  and wielded it against PW3 and the nearby crowd.

9.Meanwhile, a male Chan Kwong Kee (“Chan”)  stepped out of a nearby white Ford LGV (with chassis number WF01XXTTG1KC33381)  with a stick in his hand and walked towards PW1 and Mr Wong.  However, Chan backed off and returned to the LGV before reaching them.

10.Mr Wong managed to escape from the crowd and fled the scene in the LGV driven by Chan.  Before it moved off, the LGV was parked right in front of PW2’s vehicle.  PW2’s dash cam captured the image of the LGV’s plate number as “ZJ 7506”.  Moreover, PW2 drove his vehicle to follow the LGV.  A police report was made when the LGV turned into Kam Shan Country Park.

11.Police conducted a search in the Country Park and found the LGV abandoned with a different plate numbered “VV 9823”.  A check of the registration number “VV 9823” revealed the registered owner of the LGV was Cheung Chun Keung (PW4).

12.Investigation revealed that in the afternoon of 13 October 2024, PW4 arranged for his LGV to be driven to a garage in Sham Shui Po for maintenance and renewal of licence.  The LGV and its key were duly passed to Mr Wong for that purpose.

13.At about half-past-10 in the evening the same day, PW4 received a text message from Mr Wong that the LGV was lost.  PW4 found the LGV on Golden Hill Road with the help of GPS.

14.On 14 October 2024, police arrested Mr Wong at the garage for attempted robbery.

15.During a VRI conducted in the early hours of 16 October 2024, Mr Wong stated the following:-

(a)  He and Chan were involved in robbing PW1;

(b)  He became acquainted with Chan in May 2024 when Chan approached him in the garage for a chat; he was not very familiar with Chan and did not know where Chan lived;

(c)  About a week prior to the robbery, Chan told him a female employee (ie PW1)  of a money exchange company had been walking past the Junction with a bag at about 8 to 9 pm every day;

(d)  Chan and he then planned to rob her by snatching her handbag when she stopped at a red light at the Junction;

(e)  On 13 October 2024, at about 3 pm, a client left the LGV with plate number VV9823 at the garage for maintenance;

(f)  He and Chan decided to drive the LGV to the Junction for the robbery;

(g)  He always had a pair of forged vehicle plates at the garage; at about 8:30 pm on 13 October 2024, he and Chan affixed the forged vehicle plates over the original vehicle plates of the LGV in the area of Tai Po Road, near Golden Hill Road;

(h)  Prior to the robbery, Chan picked up a metal crowbar/iron bar from the garage while Mr Wong had with him a knife which he always had for work purposes;

(i)  Chan was the driver while Mr Wong was to execute the robbing;

(j)  Upon arriving at the Junction, Mr Wong left the LGV and attempted to rob PW1 but was unsuccessful because some passersby intervened;

(k)  He wielded the knife against the passersby for self-protection;

(l)  After the failed robbery, he got into the LGV driven by Chan and fled;

(m)  He and Chan returned to Tai Po Road and removed the forged vehicle plates affixed to the LGV;

(n)  When they heard police siren on Golden Hill Road, they abandoned the LGV and ran in separate directions; they had discarded the knife and the iron bar;

(o)  He proceeded to the garage and did not know where Chan went; and

(p)  At about 10:40 pm, he returned to the garage; he messaged the client to say that the LGV had been stolen.

16.In the afternoon of 16 October 2024, Mr Wong was brought to the area of Kam Shan Country Park for investigation.  There, he admitted under caution that:

(a)  He had discarded a pair of forged vehicle plates with the number ZJ7506 and the clothing he wore during the robbery into the river and bush in the area of Kam Shan Country Park and he had also abandoned the LGV there; and

(b)  He had discarded the knife in the area of Kam Shan Country Park.

Criminal record

17.Mr Wong has a previous clear record.

Antecedents

18.Mr Wong is aged 51 (49 at the time of the offences), educated to secondary 3 level, was a garage owner at the time of arrest.  Before arrest, he was living with his wife and son in public housing in Tai Po.

Mitigation

19.Mr Kenneth YF Wong of counsel (“Counsel”)  assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Wong.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

20.Mr Wong indicated his guilty pleas at the very first opportunity; he should be entitled to 1/3 discount on sentence.

21.Mr Wong was born in the Mainland.  He came to Hong Kong in 1990.  He has a clear record.

22.Mr Wong married in 1998 and has a son aged 21.  Mr Wong’s wife divorced him after the present case.

23.Before arrest, Mr Wong was a garage owner.  Due to Covid and the increase of people driving to the Mainland for leisure, his business went badly.  Out of stupidity and financial difficulty, Mr Wong committed the offences.  He shows his remorse by pleading guilty and he asks for the most lenient sentence.

Attempted robbery

24.The first charge concerned with an unarmed attempted robbery.  Unlike armed robbery in which Mo Kwong Sang v The Queen [1981] HKLR 610 set down the tariff, there is no tariff for unarmed robbery.

25.In The Queen v Yau Kwok Tung [1987] HKLR 782, the Court of Appeal held at 783I:-

“A sentence of four years, in the circumstances of this case, is at the top end of the tariff for robberies where weapons are not displayed. Nevertheless, the offence took place at night, the victims were frightened and we do not regard it as so manifestly excessive that it would be proper for us to interfere with it.”

26.In Ting Chiu & Another [2003] 3 HKLRD 378, the Court of Appeal held that for an unarmed robbery, the starting point should be lower than the normal sentence for an armed robbery.  The fact that the robbery involved more than one culprit was an aggravating factor because the threat and pressure exerted by a number of robbers on the victim were obviously more serious than those exerted by a lone robber.  In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal considered that the appropriate starting point was 4 years’ imprisonment.

27.In the present case, Mr Wong was charged together with one Chan Kwong Kee; however, Chan acted as the driver only and did not come into contact with the victim.  The victim did not suffer any physical injury in the incident. Counsel submitted that the court may impose a sentence of not more than 4 years’ imprisonment.

Possession of an offensive weapon

28.The maximum penalty for the offence is 3 years’ imprisonment.  Mr Wong wielded the knife when he tried to escape from the scene.  Luckily, no one was injured.

29.For an armed robbery where the accused used a knife, the tariff would be 5 years: Mo Kwong Sang (ibid).  Counsel submitted that the court may impose a sentence of 1 year’s imprisonment with 6 months to be served concurrently with the sentence for the attempted robbery.

Theft

30.In HKSAR v Cheung Ka On [2025] 4 HKLRD 258, the Court of Appeal held that the usual starting point for theft of a motor vehicle was 3 years’ imprisonment.

31.In the present case, the LGV was stolen to commit the robbery and it was then abandoned in the area of Kam Shan Country Park.  There was no damage caused to the LGV and the owner recovered the same.

32.The theft is closely linked to the attempted robbery.  Counsel submitted that 12 months of the sentence for the theft should be served consecutively to that for the attempted robbery.

Forgery of documents

33.The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $10,000 and 3 years’ imprisonment.

34.The commission of this offence is to masquerade the LGV so that it could not be traced when it was used in the commission of the robbery.  For this reason, the offence is closely linked to the commission of the attempted robbery.  Counsel suggested a sentence of 9 months’ imprisonment and submitted that part of the sentence for the forgery offence should be served concurrently with the sentence for the attempted robbery (or alternatively, the whole of the sentence be served concurrently with the sentence for the theft).

35.Counsel suggested that a global starting point for the whole case be set at 5 ½ years’ imprisonment.

Assistance to the police

36.Mr Wong provided an NPS to the police.  It seems that Mr Wong has provided information to the police on the identity of the accomplice Chan which led to his identification and arrest.

37.In The Queen v Chan Fu Kui, CACC 6/1986, the Court of Appeal held that a reduction of 50% was a perfectly proper one for a judge to permit in an ordinary case where the defendant had pleaded guilty and had given assistance to the prosecution in other cases.

38.In HKSAR v Yip Choi Man & Anor, HCCC 340/2023, the Court of First Instance held at p8D-L that:-

“Given the limited information I had, I assessed his assistance is one of providing useful intelligence to authorities only. I am of the view that the discount I can give to D1 for his plea and assistance falls within the range of one-third to 40 per cent. Given the assistance only constitutes useful intelligence and had nothing to do with the arrest nor prosecution of D2, I am only persuaded that I should give a discount of slightly more than one-third, and I adopt a 35 per cent.

In HKSAR v Ilmayanti [2019] 4 HKLRD 1, the Court of Appeal gave a discount of 37 per cent to the assistance rendered by the appellants as the true value of the appellants assistance lay in there (sic)  being able to identify the recruiter so that he can be tracked down through investigation processes.

In HKSAR v Lo Sze Tung Stephanie, CACC 190/2017, the Court of Appeal gave the appellant a discount of around 43.5 per cent for her assistance in not only the apprehension of the co-accused, but also she would have given evidence for the prosecution had her co-accused not pleading (sic)  guilty.”

39.Mr Wong is willing to give evidence for the prosecution against Chan though it may not be needed.  In any event, the information provided by Mr Wong led to the arrest of Chan.  Counsel submitted that this court may consider to give Mr Wong 40% discount on sentence for his guilty plea and assistance to the police.

40.Counsel submitted on behalf of Mr Wong a mitigation letter written in Chinese by Mr Wong himself.  The contents generally are that Mr Wong is extremely regretful for what he has done; that he is determined to reform himself and he hopes to return to his family and society early.

Sentence

41.I have borne in mind the cases that have been referred to by Counsel.

42.For Charge 1, I took into account a pre-planned robbery even though unarmed is a serious offence; that Yau Kwok Tung was already a case of two robbers; that the present case involved a potential loss of about $1 million.  For these reasons, I will adopt a starting point of 4 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

43.For Charge 2, Mr Wong not only had a knife in a public place, he actually brandished it against PW3 and the surrounding crowd.  I will adopt a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment.

44.For Charge 3, I noted that Mr Wong committed the offence together with Chan.  For this reason, I will adopt a starting point of 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

45.For Charge 4, I will as urged by Counsel adopt the starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment.

46.Mr Wong pleaded guilty to the charges in good time earning for himself the customary 1/3 sentencing discount.

47.I accept that Mr Wong had assisted the police in the identification and arrest of Chan.  I understand that Chan is going through the court process in the District Court and his next mention date will be 20 October 2026: DCCC 876/2026 refers.

48.I was informed that the relevant assistance was of practical use to the police but that it did not involve any known risk to Mr Wong and his family. Furthermore, I was informed that the prosecution after considering the NPS and the evidence decided not to rely on Mr Wong’s evidence against Chan.

49.For the foregoing reasons, I will give Mr Wong a sentencing discount of 40% from the starting points (even though the offences under Charges 2 and 4 (as charged)  did not strictly involve Chan).  This will cover both the plea and Mr Wong’s assistance to the authorities.

50.There are no other mitigating factors of weight to warrant another sentence reduction.  It is worth mentioning that because of the seriousness of a pre-planned robbery involving a potential loss of about $1 million, no credit will be given for a previous clear record.

51.I will consider totality before making appropriate orders to arrive at a fair, just and balanced final sentence for the whole case.

52.As an act of mercy, all decimal places will be discarded in the calculation of sentences in terms of months.

(Mr Wong, please stand)

53.For Charge 1, the sentence is 30 months’ imprisonment.

54.For Charge 2, the sentence is 7 months’ imprisonment.

55.For Charge 3, the sentence is 23 months’ imprisonment.

56.For Charge 4, the sentence is 5 months’ imprisonment.

57.I order that the sentences on Charges 3 and 4 are to be served concurrently with each other.

58.I order that 2 months of the sentence on Charge 2, and 10 months of the concurrent sentences on Charges 3 and 4, are to run consecutively between themselves, and to run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 1, making a final sentence for the case of 42 months’ imprisonment.