HKSAR v. Wong King Leung

DCCC377/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 377 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.This morning, the defendant pleaded guilty before me to one charge of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

2.The defendant admitted the Summary of Facts which revealed that at about 6 pm on 19 March 2010, while a lady, PW1, was near a bank’s ATM machine and talking on her mobile phone, after withdrawing some money from the machine, the defendant rushed to her and held her from behind. The defendant then shouted “Robbery” and tried to snatch PW1’s wallet which she was then holding in her hand. Inside the wallet, there were cash of HK$459.50, one Octopus card, two bank cards and some other personal cards as particularised in the charge.

3.PW1, however, did not let go of the wallet and struggled with the defendant. During the struggle, PW1 lost balance and fell onto the ground. The defendant then took away PW1’s wallet but, in the course of escape, he was subdued by some passers-by. PW1’s wallet was recovered but she had some minor abrasions caused to her right fingers during her struggle with the defendant.

4.Under caution, the defendant said that as he had no money, he committed the robbery. The defendant is now aged almost 26 and is single. He was born in the mainland but he came to Hong Kong at the age of 6. He was, therefore, educated in Hong Kong and reached the level of Form 2. He has three previous convictions, one of burglary, one of theft, and another was gambling related.

5.Before his arrest this time, the defendant lived with his retired father and his working mother. He also has an elder brother who is working and is living separately from them.

6.In mitigation, it was said on behalf of the defendant that he feels sorry for what he has done. He had worked for a period of time and he was last employed as a waiter. At the time of the offence, he had been out of job for a few months and he, therefore, committed the robbery. He has no drug habit.

7.It was also said on his behalf that no physical force was used to assault the victim during the robbery. The force used was just for the purpose of snatching the wallet but as there was resistance, so there was a struggle between the defendant and PW1. It was submitted that this case was more like a snatching case than a real robbery.

8.Mr Tang, acting for the defendant, asked for a background report but I considered this to be wholly inappropriate given the background and conviction record of the defendant and that robbery is a very serious offence.

9.The case of HKSAR v Ting Chiu & Another [2003] 3 HKLRD 378 is often referred to in the sentencing for unarmed robberies. However, in HKSAR v Tsang Wai Man, CACC288/2006, unreported, the Court of Appeal observed that Ting Chiu’s case was not a guideline case for the sentencing of unarmed robberies in terms of the length of sentence to be imposed and that every case must be determined on its own facts.

10.In the present case, although the defendant acted on his own, he did prey on his female victim and robbed her of her wallet after she had shortly withdrawn some cash from the ATM machine. PW1 also sustained some injuries, although minor ones, during her struggle with the defendant.

11.In the case before me, there are no other mitigating factors apart from the defendant’s plea. Having considered all the relevant facts, the defendant’s background and the mitigation put forth, I am going to adopt a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment. The defendant pleaded guilty, and I shall give him the usual reduction of one-third for his plea. He is, therefore, to serve a term of 32 months.