HKSAR v. Tam Chun Yip

DCCC 1638/2025

[2026] HKDC 1896

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1638 OF 2025

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

--------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

--------------------------------------

1.Mr Tam pleaded guilty before me to one charge of Robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.  Particulars are that he, on 27 May 2025, at Circle K Convenience Store, Shop No 2, Ground Floor, Coronet Court, No 2 Hung Tai Road, Hung Shui Kiu, Yuen Long, New Territories, in Hong Kong, robbed Tang Hiu Yin of cash of $1,920 Hong Kong currency and one packet of cigarettes.

Facts admitted by Mr Tam

2.On 27 May 2025, at about 2:30 am, Ms Tang Hiu Yin (PW1) was manning the Circle K Convenience Store at Hung Tai Road, Hung Shui Kiu.  Mr Tam in black attire and carrying a black bag entered the store and approached her.

3.Mr Tam said he wanted a packet of Marlboro.  PW1 turned around and fetched one packet (valued at $102).  At this time, Mr Tam approached nearer to PW1 from her left, took the packet of cigarettes, and pointed a 25 cm fruit knife at her.  Mr Tam said he was robbing Circle K and not PW1 because his daughter was sick.  Feeling scared, PW1 took out all the banknotes (totalling $1,920) inside one of the two cash registers and put them into Mr Tam’s black bag.

4.Mr Tam immediately fled.  PW1 made a police report.

5.Upon investigation, police found Mr Tam was a resident of Flat D, No 14G2, Tin Ha Road near Sun Lee Uk Tsuen (“Flat D”).

6.On the same day as the date of the robbery, police, armed with a search warrant, broke into Flat D and seized the following items:

(a)  A black cap (E1);

(b)  A black short-sleeved shirt (E2);

(c)  A pair of black trousers (E3);

(d)  A pair of black canvas shoes (E4);

(e)  18 face masks in black (E5);

(f)  A black handbag (E6); and

(g)  Inside E6, a knife bandaged by gauze (E7).

7.On 28 May 2025, at 6:38 pm, in a shopping mall in Tuen Mun, Mr Tam was arrested for robbery.  Under caution, Mr Tam admitted he went to rob because he had used up all his money with no way out.

8.In a cautioned VRI conducted on the day of arrest, Mr Tam stated:

(a)  He robbed the subject store using a knife as he encountered numerous difficulties in life; and

(b)  At the material time:-

(i)  at around 2 am, he wore E1 to E4 at his residence; he brought along the only knife in Flat D and bandaged it with gauze;

(ii)  he took a bicycle outside his neighbour’s flat, rode it to the subject store, and pondered at a nearby park for about 10 minutes on whether to rob before finally making up his mind to go ahead;

(iii)  when robbing the subject store, he told PW1 he was in need of money as his daughter was suffering from fever; he then took the banknotes from a cash register and put it in his bag ie E6;

(iv)  he rode back and parked the bicycle in its original position; he changed his clothes and placed E1 to E4 inside Flat D;

(v)  he had consumed the packet of Marlboro and spent all of the banknotes on food; and

(vi)  the masks found in Flat D ie E5 bore the same brand as the one worn by him at the time of the robbery.

9.Mr Tam now admits the particulars of the offence.

Criminal record

10.Mr Tam has 3 previous dissimilar convictions the last of which dated back to 2010.

Antecedents

11.Mr Tam is aged almost 43 (41 at the time of the offence), educated to F3 level.  He had previously worked as transportation worker and driver.  From 2019 to 2020, he invested in the logistics business but it failed and he filed for bankruptcy in 2024.

12.Mr Tam lived alone.  He has a grown-up son and a young daughter with his ex-fiancee.  His two children, together with the son’s girlfriend, live with Mr Tam’s parents.

Mitigation

13.Mr Paulinus Lo of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Tam.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

14.The offence is markedly out of character for Mr Tam.  He did not use the knife to injure the store attendant.

15.Mr Tam’s act was not carefully premeditated but was an impulsive act committed when he was in dire financial straits and had reached the end of his tether.

16.Mr Tam was the sole breadwinner of the family which was under substantial financial pressure.

17.At the time of the incident, Mr Tam worked as a casual driver and had two weeks’ wage outstanding from his employer, totalling about $5,000, which was not an insignificant sum to him.  The financial stress prompted him to commit the present offence on impulse.  Besides, Mr Tam was in urgent need of funds to seek medical treatment for his sick young daughter.

18.In Mo Kwong Sang v The Queen [1981] HKLR 610, the Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery where the accused carried a knife or other dangerous weapon (excluding firearms) which he displayed to his victim, should be five years’ imprisonment.

19.Authorities stipulate that deterrent immediate custodial sentences should be imposed for the robbing of convenience stores.  In HKSAR v Wong Cheung [2011] 5 HKLRD 171, CACC 184 of 2009, at para 16, Yeung JA (as Yeung VP then was), delivering the judgment of the Court, observed:

“This Court has once emphasised in a case of similar nature, that convenience stores are opened 24 hours and in general, carry large amounts of cash, thus are very tempting to robbers.  In such circumstances, the offence of robbing a convenience store is akin to the offences of robbing a bank, a goldsmith shop or other shops which carry large amounts of cash; heavy deterrent sentences are called for so as to prevent these shops from falling prey to robbers easily.”

20.Mr Lo submitted that Wong Cheung was decided nearly two decades ago, and the societal and operational circumstances underpinning that ruling have since materially evolved.  In particular, electronic and digital payments have become far more widespread and are now commonplace in convenience stores; that it is no longer the case that convenience stores “… carry large amounts of cash… very tempting to robbers…”  Mo Lo further submitted that in the modern context, given the prevalent adoption of cashless transactions and the minimal cash holdings kept on-site at such premises, the aggravating factor attached to convenience store robbery in that older jurisprudence ought not automatically to attract the same standard deterrent sentencing starting point.

21.Mr Tam has a minor criminal record and holds no prior convictions for violent offences of a similar nature.

22.The present matter is devoid of aggravating features, such as: invasion of private premises, use of physical violence such as tying victims up, night-time domestic robbery, multiple offenders and threats against victims.  Accordingly, the court is invited to adopt a custodial starting point lower than 5 years.

23.The foremost mitigation is the timely guilty plea, attracting a 1/3 reduction of sentence.

24.Mr Lo submitted on behalf of Mr Tam a mitigation letter written in Chinese by Mr Tam himself (with English translation).  The contents generally are that Mr Tam committed the offence because of impulse and immaturity; that he apologizes to PW1 and her employer company; that he promises never to re-offend.  Mr Tam asked for a lenient sentence and a chance for reform such that he could be released early to take care of his aged parents.

Sentence

25.Robbery especially with arms is a serious offence for which condign punishment is almost invariably called for.

26.However, I accede to the submission of Mr Lo that technological advancement meant that a lot less cash is now kept in the till of a convenience store making it less attractive as a robbery target.  As such, the basis for enhancement of sentence has greatly depreciated.

27.I will merely adopt a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment as per Mo Kwong Sang in the case of Mr Tam.

28.Mr Tam pleaded guilty in good time.  He shall be entitled to the customary 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to warrant another sentence reduction.

(Mr Tam, please stand)

29.The sentence for Mr Tam is 40 months’ imprisonment.