HKSAR v. Tsue Tai Tse

DCCC392/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 392 OF 2009

 ----------------------

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. The defendant has been convicted his plea of one charge of robbery committed on 20 March this year on Plover Cove Road, in Tai Po in the New Territories.

2. The facts have been set out in detail in the summary of facts which the defendant agreed was correct. 

3. The defendant is 46 years of age and he has a very poor record consisting of 20 separate court appearances from 1984 to November last year. 

4. Mr Lee has submitted that the defendant is a drug addict which I accept for present purposes, his record certainly appears to be consistent with that fact.  It contains no fewer than 10 previous convictions for possession of dangerous drugs and one previous conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs in 2002. 

5. I note that he has no previous convictions for robbery and indeed only one of his previous convictions involved the use of violence:  That was a conviction for assaulting a person with intent to resist lawful apprehension in 1998, for which he received 6 months’ imprisonment.

6. Under caution after he was arrested the defendant admitted the offence and stated, “I needed money for food so I robbed the lady.  I punched her because she resisted me.”  He has today submitted through his counsel that the reason he committed this robbery was to get money to enable him to buy drugs to feed his addiction habit.  I accept, for present purposes, that that was the reason he committed this robbery.  Not that that is in any way mitigating, of course, because whether his motive was to get money for food or to feed his drug habit, it was equally unlawful and utterly unacceptable conduct in a law-abiding community like Hong Kong.

7. The leading case on sentencing for robbery is Mo Kwong Sang v The Queen 1981 HKLR 610 in which the Court of Appeal stated that the appropriate sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery where the accused carried a knife or similar weapon which he displayed to his victim, should be 5 years’ imprisonment. 

8. It is important to note, however, that the present case is not a case of armed robbery.  The defendant did not carry let alone display any kind of a weapon.  Clearly it is right that in these circumstances, the starting point should, generally speaking, be lower than that envisaged in Mo Kwong Sang v The Queen for armed robbery.  This principle was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ting Chiu & Anor [2003]3 HKLRD 378. 

9. There was nothing sophisticated about this robbery.  On the contrary it was a very crude attempt to rob the victim of her handbag.  The victim was strolling along the cycling track on Plover Cove Road when the defendant, on his bicycle, bumped into her from behind, jumped off his bicycle and proceeded to try to snatch her handbag.  When she resisted he punched her twice in her face, pushed her to the ground and stepped on her right arm twice while trying to wrest her handbag away from her; eventually the handbag broke apart and the defendant fled with part of it in his grasp.  He was chased by the victim and some bystanders, who intercepted him, and the stolen property was recovered.

10. While it was not in any sense sophisticated, it nevertheless did involve some planning and premeditation.  Whilst the starting point should be lower than the 5 years envisaged for armed robbery in Mo Kwong Sang, it nevertheless must be sufficient to reflect the public’s complete abhorrence of such a crime of violence against an innocent member of the community walking at night, and be sufficient to deter people like the defendant from resorting to this sort of violence to try to raise some money for whatever purpose.

11. The defendant employed actual violence against the victim, punching her twice in the face, pushing her to the ground and standing on her arm while he was attempting to pull the bag away from her.  She was taken to hospital and treated for minor injuries and discharged later that day. 

12. In all the circumstances, I have adopted a starting point of 3½ years’ imprisonment after trial.  In return for the defendant’s plea of guilty and his cooperation with the authorities, I afford him the normal one-third discount, which results in a sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment. 

13. I should make it clear to the defendant that in my view this is a relatively lenient sentence that he has received.  If he ever comes before the courts again for any offence involving personal violence, he can expect no leniency whatsoever from the court.