HKSAR v. Lau Wan

DCCC 50/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 50 OF 2009

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

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

Coram: Deputy District Judge Dufton in Court

Date of Verdict: 13 May 2009

Date of Sentence: 13 May 2009

Present: Mr. Malcolm Nunns, Counsel on fiat for the Prosecution.

Mr. Nigel Bedford assigned by D.L.A. for the Defendant.

Charge: Robbery & theft(搶劫罪及盜竊罪)

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant stands convicted after trial of one charge of robbery and eleven charges of theft, contrary to sections 9 and 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

2.Full particulars of the offences are set out in the verdict delivered earlier today.  In summary on the 9th October 2008 TSOI Shing-tuen (PW1) went on behalf of his friend LAU Chi-ho (PW2) to collect a debt of $2400 from the defendant.  Whilst in the flat the defendant forcibly took away Tsoi’s bag containing his wallet, inside which were his Bank of China ATM card and Bank of East Asia Card.  The defendant forced Tsoi to reveal the pin numbers for the cards, after which the cards were used to withdraw cash from various ATM machines (charges 2-8) and for four transactions using EPS (charges 9-12).   

3.I accept the robbery can be classified as an unarmed robbery and that PW1 did not suffer any injuries.  However the court cannot overlook the whole of the circumstances.  When PW1 arrived at the flat the defendant threatened him with a knife.  Other than a short period of time when PW1 was allowed to leave to find PW2, PW1 was detained against his will for over 24 hours.  PW1 was forced to disclose the pin numbers for the two bankcards as a result of which a total of $57,555 was withdrawn from ATM machines and by EPS.  PW1 was also made to fill out his name and identity card number on an IOU (exhibit P1) saying he borrowed $9000. 

4.The starting point for unarmed robbery is generally no more than four years imprisonment (for example see HKSAR v LAM Ka-hung CACC 294/2003 and HKSAR v TSANG Wai-man CACC 288/2006).  Each case must however be decided upon its own particular facts and circumstances.  Where bankcards are taken and subsequently used this can be regarded as an aggravating factor (see R v SUN Sheung-chung CACC 152/1993 as applied in HKSAR v YAN Wai-ming CACC 417/2002).

5.In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Bedford. 

6.The defendant is aged thirty and has already amassed a large number of convictions.  The defendant is now serving a sentence of 8 months imprisonment for possession of an offensive weapon.  Whilst some are when he was a juvenile the defendant can properly be regarded as a persistent offender.  

7.Taking into account all the circumstances I am satisfied the proper sentence after trial on the robbery charge is 4 years imprisonment and on the theft charges the proper sentence is 12 months imprisonment on charges 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 11 and  6 months imprisonment on charges 5, 8, 9 and 12. 

8.The eleven theft offences having all being committed on the same day within a period of 15 hours I order the sentences to be served concurrently.  Further having taken into account the revealing of the pin numbers and the use of the cards as an aggravating factor of the robbery I am satisfied the sentences on charges 2-12 are to be served concurrent with the sentence on charge 1.  The defendant is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, which sentence is to be served consecutively to the sentence the defendant is now serving, which is separate and distinct from the present offences.