HKSAR v. Wong Ka Wai

DCCC766/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 766 OF 2009

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

----------------------  

Before:   Deputy District Judge Casewell

Date: 25 August 2009 at 10.32 am

Offence:  Attempted Robbery (企圖搶劫罪)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted robbery on 19 June in Saigon Street. 

2.The victim in this case was a seaman who had collected some money.  The money being received in the form of a cheque and he changed that into currency.  He had a substantial amount of currency, RMB$88,260 and HK$5,140 which he kept in a shoulder bag that he was carrying.  There was also a mobile phone, wallet and identity document in the bag.  Now, the defendant in this case was seen to be following this gentleman by police officers.  And then eventually in Saigon Street, the defendant attempted to steal or rob from the victim, PW1. 

3.He did this by grabbing the strap of the shoulder bag.  PW1 responded by holding on to the bag.  Now, it is at this point that the defendant threatened PW1 that he would stab him with a knife.  He then punched his chest and there was a struggle.  The police came to assist but the defendant pushed the victim away and fled. 

4.The defendant was eventually apprehended but no knife was found upon him and the defendant simply said that he was unemployed and he tried to rob PW1 to see if there was any money inside the bag.  Now, the defendant has admitted those facts and I have convicted him.

5.His antecedence shows that he is 39 years old.  He has a criminal record involving 8 previous convictions dating back to 1984 when he first committed attempted robbery and was sent to a training centre.  The defendant had a further conviction in 1989 for robbery and was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.  There were other convictions in 1989 for various other offences of dishonesty.  In 1993, the defendant received a 13-year sentence of imprisonment for robbery.  And again, as recently as 2005, he received a 3-year sentence from the High Court for robbery.  The result of this the defendant was discharged from Tai Lau Correctional Institute on 25 September 2006. 

6.In mitigation, the defendant says that on his release he attempted to live a more honest life and he had been involved in the fashion business with his then wife.  Now, of late, that business had run into considerable difficulties and the defendant was burdened with credit card debt and recently his wife left the family without telling the family. 

7.The defendant says he became desperate, he had no money and had attempted to commit suicide.  It was in these circumstances that he set out to try and get some money by performing a robbery.  I am told that there is some evidence to suggest that the defendant attempted further to commit suicide after his apprehension for this matter. 

8.In mitigation it can be said that the defendant has shown remorse.  He has accepted and shouldered his responsibility for this offence.  He asks for a chance for an early release date.  It is accepted by all parties, of course, that a sentence of immediate imprisonment is warranted and inevitable in this case.  I have to adopt the correct starting point for sentence. 

9.In this attempted robbery a degree of violence was used.  The victim was punched.  There was struggling between the victim and the defendant and further the defendant threatened the victim that he would be stabbed with a knife, although there was no knife.  This means that the offence can be categorised as an unarmed robbery. 

10.Now, in the case of HKSAR v Ting Chui, which is 174 Court of Appeal case in 2003, there is assistance on the recommended level of sentencing for an unarmed robbery.  In the circumstances of that case the Court of Appeal considering that the robbery was an unarmed one, said that the starting point should be 4 years’ imprisonment.  In that case the offence was committed by two persons, together with two others and in the presence of other people, presumably meaning that the robbery was more likely to be successful and also would involve a greater level of threat.

11.In this case the defendant acted alone.  However, in considering the appropriate starting point for sentence in this case of unarmed robbery, I do have to bear in mind that the defendant has been persistent in committing robberies since the 1980s.  And despite lengthy periods of imprisonment has still pursued that as a means of raising money as recently, before this offence, as 2005.

12.Now, I bear in mind that the defendant acted alone and that no serious violence was used.  But for this defendant, on this charge, I consider the appropriate starting point is the one set out in the HKSAR v Ting Chiu and that is 4 years’ imprisonment. 

13.The defendant has pleaded guilty and shown remorse.  He is entitled to the full discount of the sentence.  The full one-third discount is 16 months.  This leads to a final sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment, or 2 years’ and 8 months’ imprisonment.  So the sentence I will impose is one of 2 years’ and 8 months’ imprisonment.