HKSAR v. Chan Pak Tik

DCCC251/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 251 OF 2009

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1. The defendant pleaded guilty to an offence of assault with intent to rob.  The victim of the case is a 37 year-old female.  And the particulars are that on 3 February, this year, in an open area between San Hoi House and a multi-storey car park, the defendant assaulted the victim with intent to rob her.

2. The facts of the case are that at around 1.05 am on 3 February, this year, the victim was walking home alone after getting off a bus outside San Wai Court in Tuen Mun.  I was told on the last occasion that the defendant was also on that bus and he got off at the same time.  When the victim arrived at the open area between San Hoi House and the multi-storey car park, the defendant suddenly used his hand to grab the victim’s face from behind and tried to drag her towards the car park.  The victim resisted and shouted for assistance and about two or three seconds later, the defendant fled.  Fortunately, the only injury suffered by the victim was redness to her face.

3. The matter was reported to the police and inquiries revealed that the image of the defendant had been captured on the close-circuit television of Tin Tsui House.  A week after the robbery, the defendant was arrested, and he admitted committing the offence.

4. He told the police that he noticed the victim who was carrying a shoulder bag and he suddenly thought of snatching it from her.  He said he used his right hand to cover the victim’s mouth and tried to snatch the shoulder bag with his left hand, but he failed to do so as his left hand was partially disabled.  Thereafter, he ran away.

5. The defendant has one matter recorded on his record, an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 2005, for which he was placed on probation.  He did not perform well on probation.  He was brought back to court the following year, and the probation period was extended to 18 months.

6. I was told in mitigation on the last occasion that the defendant is 19 years of age; he was educated to Form 3 standard.  He has been employed as an apprentice vehicle washer.  He lives with his family in Tuen Mun.  His father is 45 and a transportation worker, and his mother works as a waitress.  He has a younger brother aged 17, who is unemployed.

7. A number of letters were placed before the court on the last occasion.  There was a letter from the defendant’s mother, in which she said that the defendant was remorseful, had realised that what he was doing was wrong and wished to apologise to the victim.  There were some letters from his colleagues and employer, which describe him as being hardworking and conscientious.  They refer this offence as being out of character and committed on impulse.

8. There is also a letter from the defendant, in which he describes the remorse and shame he has experienced as a result of his involvement in this matter.  He wanted the opportunity to apologise for his involvement in this offence, and he is also very concerned about the anxiety and stress, which he has caused to his parents.

9. I asked for the Commissioner of Correctional Services on the last occasion to prepare a report to assess the suitability of the defendant for detention in a training centre.  I am told that the defendant is mentally and physically fit for such a detention and there is a place available for him.  And it also considers him suitable for detention in such a centre.

10. The report talks of the defendant’s early years as being uneventful and being an average student.  However, when he became a teenager, he became out of control.  He mixed with undesirable peers and joined in triad activities.  He quit school in 2005, and his triad-related activities got him into the problems with the offence he committed in 2005.

11. I have considered very carefully all the circumstances of this offence.  This is clearly a serious offence.  It is a cowardly attack on a lone female in the early hours of the morning.  Normally such offences would attract a considerable sentence of imprisonment.  However, having read the letters which you have submitted and considered the report, I am prepared to give you a chance on this occasion.

12. I am going to order that you be detained in a training centre, but please be quite clear that this sort of offence would normally attract a prison sentence of between four to five years.  This is your last chance.  If you do anything like this again, you will go to prison for a considerable period of time.