CRIMINAL CASE NO. 307 OF 2009
COURT: The defendant is convicted after trial of one count of robbery and three counts of unlawful wounding.
The defendant is aged 53, married, and has a clear record in Hong Kong.
On the night in question, he boarded a taxi driven by PW1. When the taxi arrived at Beacon Heights, he tried to tie a nylon rope around the neck of the taxi driver, and used a stun gun to stun the right shoulder of PW1. He chased after PW1 out of the taxi, and during the struggle, pulled off PW1’s upper garment, and stunned him several times, until PW1 begged for mercy and told him where his money was placed.
The defendant then went back to the taxi to steal properties belonging to PW1 as itemised in Count 1, including $220 cash.
Later on, a second taxi, driven by PW2, arrived at the scene. PW2 to PW4 came to render assistance.
Having failed an attempt to make off using PW1’s taxi, the defendant then waved a cutter at the others, and wounded PW1 and PW2. He further tried to escape using PW2’s taxi, but was eventually subdued. In the course of that, he bit and punched PW3.
Counsel for the defendant urges me to view this matter as an out of character one, and says that it is unlikely that the defendant would reoffend further.
In sentencing the defendant, I have referred to the case of Mo Kwong Sang, which set down guidelines and tariffs for robbery with lethal weapons such as knives. The Court of Appeal then said in the case of Tran van Anh [1993] 2 HKCLR 122 the following:
“The court has said that in the normal case of taxi robberies, it will not interfere with sentences of 5 to 6 years. This, however, applies only to cases where minimal or no violence is used, and a weapon other than a firearm is merely displayed. In the present case, the seizing of the driver by the hair and the holding of a sharp weapon at his throat constituted a measure of violence, albeit not serious violence. Taxi drivers, as we have frequently observed, are particularly vulnerable to robbery, especially those who ply for hire late at night or in the early hours of the morning, or who pick up or drop passengers in quiet locations. Henceforward, sentences of 7 years’ imprisonment after a contested trial would be justified for offences similar to that in the present case.”
Similarly, it was held in Lai Ting Wah (1998) 3 HKC 509 that 7 years’ imprisonment for taxi robbery after trial would be justified.
The present case is a planned robbery as opposed to at the spur of the moment snatching. The defendant brought with him the implements to facilitate commission of the robbery. He told PW1 to go to a quiet spot at night. He stunned PW1 with a stun gun and attempted to tie him up, using a rope.
PW1 suffered a 10 cm cut wound over his right upper limb, whilst PW2 had a 3 cm superficial wound on his left forearm. The defendant even bit PW3 in an attempt to escape.
This case is one of the worst cases of its type. It has with it nearly all the aggravating features. I am of the view that for the 1st charge of robbery, a starting point of 7 years is justified, and for each of the wounding charges I adopt a starting point of 12 months.
Taking in the totality of the sentences, I order 6 months out of each of Count 2 to Count 4 to run consecutively, making a total of 8½ years’ imprisonment.
This is the sentence that I pass.
Please refer to CACC388/2010 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.