HKSAR v. Ng Kit Shing

DCCC731/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 731 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges, one of robbery, one of attempted robbery.

2.Both offences were committed in the early hours of the morning of 12 May at the same venue, the Sam Ka Tsuen Recreation Ground in Sze Shan Street, Yau Tong.

3.The first victim, who was a male aged 79, was robbed of HK$20; the second victim, this was an attempt robbery of a lady aged 71 years.

4.The facts admitted by the defendant disclosed that at about 4.30 am on 12 May, the first victim, Mr Lai, went to the recreation ground alone for a walk.  He was approached by the defendant from behind.  The defendant pressed a knife against his neck and declared robbery. The victim surrendered the $20, which was all he had in his possession.  The defendant pressed the knife against the neck of the victim and searched the pockets of the defendant’s clothes.  He fled after he found no further money.

5.The victim immediately tailed the defendant and saw him trying to pull a ring from one female victim.  She had gone alone to the recreation area for exercise.  The defendant came up to her and demanded money.  She did not have any.  He immediately pointed the knife at her neck and the defendant asked her to surrender her ring, which was valued at $5,000, and her watch, which was valued at $300.  He attempted to pull the ring from her finger, but failed.

6.Fortunately, there was a passer-by who shouted out “robbery”, and the defendant fled from the recreation ground and a report was made to the police.

7.The defendant was located at about 5.35 am in Sze Shan Street.  He was intercepted and the knife that he had used in the robberies was found underneath his T-shirt.  The blade of the knife was about 15 centimetres in length.

8.Under caution, he admitted that he had used the knife to rob the old lady. 

9.At the time of the arrest, he said he had committed the offences because of his dangerous drug habit.  He needed to buy some drugs.

10.The defendant has an appalling record.  He has 32 previous convictions for theft, 24 of them were robbery offences, and I note that in 2001, for robbery, he was sent to prison for 7 years and 8 months.

11.His latest conviction was in September 2009, when for theft he was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment, and that was suspended for a period of 2 years.  He is of course in breach of that suspended sentence today.

12.In mitigation, I was told that he is 61 years of age.  He is married.  He has a wife and two children living on the Mainland, they are aged 3 and 2.  I am told that he contributes $1,000 per month to their upkeep.

13.He was working as a cleaner on a casual basis, but he is now in receipt of social welfare.

14.I am told that he has been a drug addict since 1970, but he now says that he has given up on drugs.

15.His counsel tells me today that the robbery was committed because he needed money to finance an operation for his daughter, which is contrary to what he told the police at the time of his arrest.

16.Clearly, the offence are serious.  This must been a terrifying ordeal for the elderly victims concerned.  The offences were committed at 4.30 in the morning.  In my view, these are cowardly and despicable acts.

17.The usual sentence for an offence of this gravity is one of 5 years’ imprisonment.  I see no reason to depart from that.

18.The only mitigation in this case is that he pleaded guilty. 

19.In respect of each of the offences, I take a starting point to 5 years and I reduce that by one-third to reflect the guilty plea.  So for each of the offences, the sentence will be one of 40 months’ imprisonment.

20.I have to consider the question of totality and I have decided that 12 months of the period of imprisonment on the 2nd charge will run consecutive to the 40 months on the 1st charge.

21.The defendant is also in breach of a suspended sentence imposed on him last year.  Counsel has not urged upon me in mitigation any reasons that would lead me not to impose that suspended sentence.  I therefore impose the suspended sentence and order that it run consecutive to the other sentences. 

22.The total period of imprisonment therefore will be one of 54 months.