HKSAR v. Pua Siu Ming

DCCC9/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 9 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one charge of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, and a second charge of taking a conveyance without authority, contrary to section 14(1) of the same ordinance.

2.The facts are as follows. PW1, the first victim, was working; driving a customer and his goods from one delivery point to another in his vehicle. This customer’s goods were in the back of his vehicle and at the time of the robbery totalled 32 cartons. This customer was the second victim. They had that afternoon on 27 October 2009 already been to four locations to make deliveries. At the fifth location, they were ambushed by the defendant and other wanted persons.

3.The ambush was clearly planned. They had to have been watched and were approached as soon as PW1 parked his van. What followed was also premeditated. The defendant and fellow robbers were dressed in identical black vests, wearing silver chains with a Hong Kong Police-like badge attached to it around their necks. They roared up in a private vehicle directly behind PW1’s van and jumped out.

4.The defendant ran at PW1 and shouted “Freeze.” He and two other men were holding what looked like extendable police batons. Without warning, PW1 was punched by the defendant, who then pointed the baton at him and ordered him to squat to the grounds with his hands behind his head. It was clearly intended the victims would at first believe that these men were police officers and therefore not retaliate.

5.The second victim was also hit and he fell to the ground. The defendant then jumped into PW1’s van and drove away with all his personal belongings as well as the second victim’s goods. All other wanted persons left in their own vehicle leaving, I imagine, a rather stunned PW1, who then subsequently made a report to the police.

6.Some 2 weeks later, the defendant was subsequently arrested and identified to be the attacker of PW1 and the male that drove his van away in the course of the robbery. This van was found 2 days after it was stolen and empty. Besides the 32 cartons of goods, PW1’s loss was not unsubstantial. He lost valuables that included $20,000 cash, two mobile phones, a notebook computer and other personal items.

7.When the defendant was arrested under caution he did give an explanation of how he ended up at the scene and how he became involved in this robbery. However, from the summary of facts that have been agreed it is clear the defendant played a major role in subduing PW1 with force and threat before driving the vehicle away.

8.The defendant is 28 years old. He does have a previous conviction. However, it was in 2003 for an offence that was not similar and from the fine imposed obviously minor. He is a working man, living with his family and young son. He is the main family financial provider. The defendant and his wife are separated.

9.I have heard mitigation made on his behalf. Mitigation consists mainly of letters written by his parents, siblings, previous employer and friends. I have considered the contents of the letters, all asking for leniency on his behalf.

10.I have considered the facts of this case as well as the authority submitted by the defence, the authority of Mo Kwong Sang [1981] HKLR 78.

11.This was a serious offence. This was a robbery where a weapon was displayed to the victims. This weapon was not used to hit PW1. However, he was punched during the course of this robbery. I accept the submission that the weapon was not a sharp knife or chopper but a retractable police baton. However, in my view, it is nonetheless a dangerous weapon.

12.I do not see this as a reason to consider a lower starting point. In fact, I am of the opinion that in the facts of this case there are aggravating factors. Besides PW1 being physically abused by being punched in the face and having a weapon pointed at his neck, there were not just a single culprit but four culprits involved. This would make for an even more frightening ordeal. Moreover, there was clearly a plan to disguise themselves as police officers to stun the victims into initial submission, making the robbery easier to carry out.

13.With these aggravating factors, I find an appropriate starting point for Charge 1 to be 5 years and 6 months. For Charge 2, I take into account the fact this was not taking a conveyance for a joyride but in the course of committing a serious crime. The latter scenario is much more serious. For this charge, I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment. This defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third for his plea of guilty today.

14.For Charge 1, the defendant is sentenced to 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. For Charge 2, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. Charges 1 and 2 will be served concurrently. The defendant is sentenced to a total of 3 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.