HKSAR v. Kazmi Saqib Abbas and Another
|
DCCC 1095/2025 [2026] HKDC 1842 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 1095 OF 2025 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ 1.The 1st Defendant (D1) and the 2nd Defendant (D2) plead guilty to one joint charge of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, and admit the relevant facts which prove the charge. They are convicted as charged accordingly. The Admitted Facts 2.The robbery in question took place at around 11:40 p.m. on 12 February 2025 outside the Yuen Fat Restaurant at the ground floor of Hang Wai Industrial Centre, No. 16 Kin On Street, Tuen Mun, New Territories. The victim was Mr. Tsui. He was 64 years old at that time. Prior to the robbery, the victim had spent a couple of hours that evening inside the Jockey Club Off-course Betting Centre at King Wing Street, Tuen Mun for betting on horse racing. 3.At that time, the victim was sitting on the ground and having his drinks which he bought from a nearby convenience store. He had a sling bag which was being worn by him across his body. His wallet was inside the sling bag. His wallet contained his Hong Kong Identity Card, his Permit for Travelling to and from Hong Kong and Macao, a driving licence, an E-payment card of the Hong Kong Housing Authority, a JoyYou card, an Octopus card, an ATM card, HK$870 cash and some Chinese New Year red packets with a total of HK$1,340 inside. Inside the main compartment of his sling bag, there were one envelope containing HK$7,000, another envelope containing HK$2,500, one HK$500 banknote, two HK$100 banknotes, and around a total of 20 horse race betting tickets with unredeemed prize money of around HK$3,000. 4.During the course of the robbery, the two defendants were wearing surgical masks. They walked towards the victim. D2, armed with a fruit knife, pointed and wielded his knife near the neck of the victim to threaten him. He spoke to the victim in Cantonese with an accent “要錢要錢” meaning that he wanted money. He struck the head of the victim with his right hand a number of times. He then grabbed the neck of the victim with his both hands from the behind of the victim to restrain the victim, while D1 removed the sling bag of the victim from his body forcibly. During the commotion, the victim fell onto the ground. The two defendants then fled after they had taken away the victim’s bag. The victim tried to pursue the defendants but to no avail. 5.The CCTV installed nearby the scene captured the entire course of the incident. 6.The victim received medical treatment in the Accident and Emergency Department in the early hours of 13 February 2025. The medical report showed that the victim sustained superficial abrasions on his forehead, left thumb and both knees. He was treated and discharged from the hospital on the same day. 7.Later in the morning, the police recovered the sling bag of the victim about 50 metres from the scene of the robbery. Upon checking, the victim found that his property inside the main compartment of his sling bag were missing. The missing property included the two envelopes containing a total of HK$9,500, the three pieces of banknotes worth a total of HK$700, and the around 20 horse racing betting tickets with redeemable prize money totalling HK$3,000. 8.On 14 February 2025, D1 was arrested. Under caution, D1 remained silent. In the subsequent cautioned video-recorded interview, D1 stated inter alia the following:
9.On 5 March 2025, D2 was arrested. Under caution, he said that he felt sorry for robbing the victim. In the subsequent cautioned video-recorded interview, D2 stated inter alia the following:
10.The CCTV installed at the Off-course Betting Centre at King Wing Street captured that D1, D2 and the victim were inside the premises at around 8:30 pm on 12 February 2025. When D1 and D2 entered the betting centre, they were wearing face masks, but they removed their face masks after entry. 11.The CCTV camera of Yuen Fat Restaurant captured that before the robbery, the two defendants had been keeping an eye on the victim for some time on the other side of the pavement whilst the victim was resting outside the restaurant. The CCTV footage also showed that a cyclist who passed by the location right after the robbery did turn around to chase after the fleeing defendants. 12.At the material times, outside Yuen Fat Restaurant at Ground Floor, No. 16 Kin On Street, Tuen Mun, D1 and D2 used force jointly on the victim for the purpose of stealing from him. Criminal records of the Defendants 13.On 21 April 2023, for the offence of common assault, D1 was bound over in the sum of HK$500 for 12 months to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour. This is not a criminal conviction. 14.D2 has 3 previous criminal convictions. He was fined HK$2,000 on 22 July 2016 for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. On 9 February 2018, he was fined HK$500 for the offence of possession of dangerous drugs. On 26 November 2018, he was sentenced to 6 days’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months for the offence of theft (shoplifting). Personal and family background of D1 15.D1 is now 47 years old. He was born on 20 January 1979 in Pakistan. He received education in Pakistan up to Form 6. He is single and works as a trading worker. His father now aged 80 is in Pakistan. His mother has already passed away. His brother and sister with their respective families are all living in Pakistan. 16.D1 came to Hong Kong in 2013 when he experienced political problem in Pakistan. He is a Form 8 holder and is relying on the assistance from the International Social Service for food and housing. Personal and family background of D2 17.D2 is now 32 years old. He was born on 20 November 1993 in Pakistan. He is single. He received education in Pakistan up to Primary 6. D2 has lived in Hong Kong since before 2016 upon a dependent visa and his father was a Hong Kong resident. 18.D2 was also a Hong Kong resident and working as a transportation worker at the time when he committed the offence. D2’s mother has already passed away. D2 had no fixed place of abode in Hong Kong at the time of the offence. D1’s mitigation 19.According to Mr. Sajan G. Sujanani, learned counsel for D1, prior to the commission of the offence, D1 received a phone call from his sister in Pakistan. She asked D1 to send her money urgently because her son had sustained severe head injuries when he hit a wall whilst riding an electric cycle, and she needed money for her son to undergo an operation urgently. On the other hand, D2 informed D1 that the victim had owed him a debt, and asked D1 to help him recover the debt. D1 thought that if D2 recovered the debt successfully, he would ask D2 to lend him the money so that he could send the money to his sister in Pakistan to cover his nephew’s urgent operation. Viewing this as a life-or-death situation, D1 agreed to participate in the robbery, hoping that D2 would obtain the repayment and lend him the necessary proceeds for the surgery. 20.Mr. Sujanani stresses that it is D1’s firm position that prior to the commission of the offence, D1 did not intend or agree to the use of a knife by D2 to commit the robbery, and he did not know that D2 had carried a knife with him before the robbery. He did not even see D2 have a knife in his hand during the robbery because his attention was on the victim and the sling bag that the victim was wearing across his body in particular. D1 says that he did not realize that a knife was used in the robbery until a police officer told him at the police station. 21.Mr. Sujanani submits that since D1 did not realize that D2 had a knife before or during the robbery, he had no chance to withdraw from the joint enterprise, and that D1 should therefore be sentenced on the basis that he had committed an unarmed robbery. He refers to cases including HKSAR v Ting Chiu[1], HKSAR v Tsang Wai-man[2], HKSAR v Ku Kwok-wai[3], and HKSAR v Beagum Bilkish[4] and submits that the starting point of D1’s sentence should be in the range of 3 to 4 years’ imprisonment, and certainly no more than 4. 22.Mr. Sujanani submits that the Court should distinguish the different roles played by D1 and D2 in the offence, in which D2 was the primary offender and D1 played a secondary role only. Hence, the sentence to be imposed on each of them should be different. He refers to the cases of HKSAR v Sin Chun-tat[5] and HKSAR v Lau Chi Kong and Another[6] to support his submissions. 23.Mr. Sujanani accepts that there were aggravating features in the offence committed by D1, including the offence was committed late at night, the victim was vulnerable, and the offence was a joint enterprise committed by two persons. He submits that these factors may warrant a collective enhancement of 6 to 12 months. 24.Mr. Sujanani also accepts that D1’s status as a torture claimant and Form 8 holder constitutes an independent aggravating factor, but submits an enhancement of the sentence by 3 months will be sufficient. He refers to HKSAR v Abbas Qammar[7], HKSAR v Haider Usman[8], and HKSAR v Usman Saqib[9] to support his submissions. 25.Mr. Sujanani says that D1 has been remanded in custody since his arrest, during which he has a chance to reflect upon his actions. He is now extremely remorseful for what he had done even though he was doing so because of the dire circumstances he was in at that time. Mr. Sujanani submits that D1 has demonstrated his sincere remorse by his early indication of the intention to plead guilty, and his earnest wishes to reform and become a responsible law-abiding citizen. D2’s mitigation 26.Mr. Edward Laskey, learned counsel for D2, submits that it is well-established that the starting point for robbery of such nature is one of 5 years’ imprisonment: Mo Kwong-sang v The Queen[10]. 27.Mr. Laskey submits that the D2’s timely guilty plea should entitle him to the usual one-third discount of the sentence. He points out that there was partial recovery of the items and money inside the victim’s sling bag, and the fact that D2 confessed to the police and pleads guilty to the charge has indicated his remorse for his acts. 28.As to the reason for D2 to commit the offence, Mr. Laskey submits that D1 and D2 had been friends for many years. At the time of the offence, D1 owed D2 money, and when D2 asked D1 to repay, D1 said that he could do so only if he were able to get back the money owed to him by the victim. On the night in question, D1 asked D2 to help him get the victim into repaying the money to D1, so that he could then pay D2. When the victim refused, force was considered necessary. 29.As to the article used by D2 in the robbery, Mr. Laskey submits that the article was not a knife but a cutter which was one of the many tools used by D2 in his work. Mr. Laskey stresses that the cutter had not been used directly to injure the victim, and that it was only waved at the victim to frighten him into providing the money for repayment of his debt. Mr. Laskey submits that the only physical contact between D2 and the victim were the 3 to 4 blows by fist to the head of the victim. Mr. Laskey agrees that the victim had suffered some injuries but they were not of the most serious nature. 30.Mr. Laskey submits that the robbery in question was not the worst of this type and asks the court to be lenient in sentencing. Reasons for sentence 31.This is an armed robbery case in which the victim was threatened by the display of a small knife, and abused with gratuitous physical violence. 32.In light of the facts of this case and the sentencing authorities referred to by learned counsel for the two defendants, there is no doubt that the only appropriate sentence to be imposed on each of them is one of imprisonment despite their guilty plea. The issue that needs to be considered in detail is the length of the term of imprisonment. 33.The Court of Appeal has laid down the tariff sentence for armed robbery in the case of Mo Kwong-sang. In this case, the Court of Appeal defined what it meant by “armed robbery”, laid down the sentencing guideline, and explained the factors that might increase or lower the sentence. The Court of Appeal stated as follows:
34.Mr. Laskey does not dispute that this tariff sentence is applicable to D2. On the other hand, Mr. Sujanani argues that D1 should be sentenced on the basis of unarmed robbery on the ground that D1 did not know that D2 was carrying a knife prior to the robbery, and that D1 did not intend or agree to the use of a knife by D2 to commit the robbery. Mr. Sujanani submits that D1 did not even see D2 holding a knife in his hand during the robbery because he had placed his full attention on the victim and the sling bag to be removed from the victim. Mr. Sujanani refers to sentencing authorities for unarmed robbery and submits that the starting point of the term of imprisonment to be imposed on D1 should not be more than 4 years’ imprisonment. 35.Apart from the issue whether or not D1 intended or agreed to the use of a knife in the course of robbery, there is also an issue on who initiated the idea of robbing the victim. In this regard, D1 and D2 are pointing their fingers against one another. 36.There is also the issue whether the victim was indebted to D2 (as alleged by D1), or indebted to D1 (as alleged by D2). 37.Neither D1 nor D2 chooses to give evidence to substantiate any of the factual matters that have been raised in their respective mitigation. 38.There is accordingly no evidence to prove the allegation that the victim was indebted to either D1 or D2. 39.Besides, I am of the view that, in light of what had happened at the time of the robbery, none of the factual allegations made by both D1 and D2 has any ring of truth. 40.It is not disputed that the course of the robbery was captured by the CCTV installed at the main entrance of Yuen Fat Restaurant. The prosecution has produced two CCTV footages, and I refer to them as Footages A and B. Footages A was captured by the CCTV camera focusing on the immediate vicinity outside the main entrance of the Restaurant, and Footages B was captured by the camera focusing on the road outside and the pavement opposite the Restaurant. 41.At the start of Footages A showing the immediate vicinity outside the main entrance of the Restaurant, the screen time as shown was 23:38:01. The footages show that the victim was standing by the side of a lorry. It seems that he was urinating by the pavement curb using the lorry as a shield to prevent him from being seen. The footages also show that the victim was carrying his sling bag across his body, with the strap of the sling bag on his left shoulder and the bag itself by the right side of his body at the waist level. The footages also show sheets of newspaper and some cans of drink were placed on the ground outside the main entrance of the Restaurant. These items must have been placed there by the victim since the subsequent footages show that the victim sat on the ground by the side of these articles after he had urinated. The irresistible inference from these footages is that the victim had begun his stay outside the main entrance of the Restaurant well before the screen time 23:38:01. 42.Footages A continues to show that, after the victim had sit down on the ground outside the main entrance of the Restaurant, he started scrolling through his mobile phone, and he was on his own until the two defendants came to him. According to the footages, when the screen time was 23:48:26, while the victim was still sitting on the ground with his back leaning against the closed entrance gate of the Restaurant, he lifted his head and looked to his left. Apparently, he was alerted by the approach of the two defendants. It can be seen from the footages that the shadow of a person appeared first, and when the screen time was 23:48:30, D2 appeared in the footages. Hence, the earlier shadow must be that of D2. At that point of time, D2 was already wielding an article with his right hand at the victim when he was coming towards and close to the victim. I have paid careful attention on the article held by D2 in his right hand. That article was clearly shown in the footages from screen time 23:48:31 to 23:48:38. I am absolutely certain that D2 was not holding a cutter as alleged in mitigation but it was a small and short knife since the whole length of the article was shiny (caused by reflection of light when the article was being wielded by D2 under the artificial lighting of the location) indicating it was the blade of a knife, and that the blade was not held in place by a blade carrier that one would have expected to be present if that article were a cutter. 43.According to the footages with screen time at 23:48:32, D2 had moved to the righthand side of the victim, his body was bent towards the victim with the knife still in his right hand pointing at the victim, and the victim was holding up his right palm towards D2 trying to create a distance between him and D2. The victim then looked to his left again, and that must be caused by the approach of D1, since the footages show that almost immediately thereafter, D1 was captured in the footages. When D1 appeared, the first thing he did was that he bent his body towards the left shoulder of the victim, and that was the exact position where the strap of the victim’s sling bag was hanging. When the victim turned the left side of his body (including his left shoulder) away from D1, D2 slapped the victim’s head with his right hand once, and when the victim lowered his head and body upon being slapped, D1 managed to lift the strap of the sling bag on the left shoulder of the victim over the victim’s head to the right side of the victim’s body. At that point of time, not only was D1 holding the strap of the sling bag, D2 also used his left hand to hold another part of the strap of the bag and tried to pull the bag away from the victim, but the victim kept on grabbing his sling bag. D2 then slapped the victim’s head continuously with his right hand 5 times, and D1 was trying to pull the sling bag away from the victim at the same time. When the victim still did not let go of his sling bag, D2 used both of his hands to grab the victim’s neck and the back of his head, and pulled the victim up and away from his sitting position. When the victim was being pulled up, his half-bent body was swung to his right by D2, and D1 who was on the victim’s left managed to pull the victim’s sling bag away from the victim. D2 then left, and the footage no longer captured him. At the same time, D2 dragged and wrestled down the victim, and slapped the victim at least one more time before he left. 44.What was conspicuous by its absence from Footages A was that there was no conversation between the victim on the one side and either or both defendants on the other side before D2 wielded his knife against the victim to rob him. If the victim were really indebted to either D1 or D2, or alternatively, if D1 or D2 really considered that the victim legitimately owed him a debt, what should have happened must be that they asked the victim to repay, and it was only when the victim refused to do so, there was a need for them to use force, or to display a knife to threaten him into submission. However, as shown by the CCTV footages, as a matter of fact, this had never happened. 45.There are also other matters showing that the allegation that the victim was indebted to D1 or D2 was nothing but a sham. According to the Summary of Facts which D1 and D2 have admitted to be true, they and the victim were inside the same Off-course Betting Centre at around 8:30 pm that evening. But they did not ask the victim to repay while they were inside or in the vicinity of the Off-course Betting Centre, and they had been in the vicinity of the victim for a few hours already. 46.Footages B also shows that D2 (who was having a rucksack on his back) was already at the pavement opposite the main entrance of Yuen Fat Restaurant (where the victim was staying) when the screen time shown on the footages was 23:15:52. D2 was alone there until the screen time 23:29:05 when D1 appeared. But they did not approach the victim there and then. They stayed in the location where they met, sometimes they came together and sometimes separate, and they started crossing the road to walk towards the victim when the footages showed the screen time at 23:48:19, which meant that they had stayed just opposite the victim for a full 19 minutes without approaching the victim and making their demand for repayment of the alleged debt. 47.I am absolutely certain that this allegation of debt owed by the victim to any defendant is without any shred of truth, not to mention that the two defendants cannot even agree upon who was the victim’s creditor, and they cannot even say how much the victim had owed. 48.As to D1’s allegation that he knew nothing about the use of a knife by D2 until he was so informed by a police officer after his arrest, D1 has not given any evidence in this regard. Not only that, the CCTV footages show clearly that when the two of them started crossing the road to approach the victim with the screen time at 23:48:19, D1 was following D2, and D1 was behind D2 in close proximity. It can be seen from the footages that even at that point of time, D2 was already holding the knife in his right hand. It was also clear that D2 was not concealing his right hand, or the knife in his right hand, from the view of D1 because his right hand was all along hanging by the right side of his body, and D2 was carrying the knife in that manner (i.e. in the open view of D1) all the way until he reached the position of the victim, and he reached that position when the screen time was 23:48:31. It means that D2 had displayed the knife in front of D1 for a full 12 seconds and it was impossible for D1 not to notice the knife if it were really true that he had no knowledge of the knife before that point of time. It was also beyond belief that if D2 did not want D1 to know that he would use a knife in the course of the robbery, he would have carried the knife in that manner, and displayed the knife in the full view of D1. 49.In any event, according to Footages A, when D2 arrived at the side of the victim, he had already been wielding the knife towards the victim, and D2 was on the righthand side of the victim in the whole episode, and D1 upon arrival at the position of the victim had always remained on the victim’s lefthand side. Nothing including the bodies of D2 and the victim would have blocked D1’s view of the knife in D2’s hand. I am sure that it is completely false when D1 alleged that he was totally unaware that D2 had used a knife in the course of the robbery. I am also sure that even if D1 did not know that D2 would use a knife in the course of the robbery at the time when they set off to reach the victim, his culpability in the offence was not much reduced because when he was by the side of the victim, he must have seen D2 using a knife to threaten the victim, and he still went along with the robbery. It was not open to D1 to say that there was no chance for him to withdraw, because he could have stopped removing the sling bag from the victim, and he could have left the scene immediately. D2 was not there to block his route for escape or withdrawal. 50.In conclusion, I reject all the factual allegations raised by the two defendants in their respective mitigation. On the other hand, I draw the only reasonable and irresistible inference that they had already noticed the victim while the 3 of them were together inside the Off-course Betting Centre, and that they had chosen the victim as the target of their intended robbery. D1 had said under caution that he and D2 noticed that the victim was holding a stack of cash. I remind myself that what D1 had said under caution was not evidence against D2, but the inference that D2 together with D1 had chosen the victim as their target of an intended robbery must stand because the footages show that D2 had either on his own or together with D1 been staying in the vicinity of the victim for more than half an hour (i.e. screen time from 23:15 to 23:48) before he approached the victim to commit the robbery. 51.I am of the view that the robbery was a joint enterprise carried out by the two defendants. I see no difference in their culpability. I also find that the tariff sentence laid down by the Court of Appeal in Mo Kwong-sang is applicable to each one of them. I rule that the appropriate starting point of the sentence to be imposed on each of D1 and D2 to be 5 years’ imprisonment. 52.There were clearly aggravating features in the offence committed by D1 and D2. First, the robbery was committed by the two defendants against a lone victim, not to mention that the victim was much older than either of them. Second, force was used gratuitously on the victim to effect the robbery. On the other hand, I take into account the fact that D2 had the good sense of not actually using the knife in his hand to injure the victim, and that the victim had sustained very minor injuries. I adjust the starting point of the sentence to be imposed on each defendant upward by 3 months. 53.There is no dispute that D1 was a Form 8 recognizance holder when he committed the offence. Mr. Sujanani does not dispute that this was another aggravating feature and submits that a 3 months’ enhancement will be appropriate. I accept the submission. D1’s sentence is accordingly further enhanced by another 3 months. 54.There is no other factor that may further enhance the sentence of either D1 and D2. Hence, the notional sentence after trial against D1 is imprisonment for 66 months, and the notional sentence after trial against D2 is imprisonment for 63 months. 55.As to the mitigating factors, both defendants have entered a timely guilty plea. Each of them is entitled to be given one-third discount of the sentence. 56.I have considered everything that had been said on behalf of D1 and D2. I find that there is no other factor that may operate to reduce the sentence. Even if what D1 had claimed were correct that he needed money for his nephew’s operation, he still had no right to commit a serious offence against an innocent citizen in Hong Kong. 57.For these reasons, I sentence the defendants as follows:
|
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error
Cases cited in this judgment