HKSAR v. Leung Ka Chun

DCCC 1032/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1032 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charge and facts

1.The 1^st Defendant (“Defendant”) pleads guilty to a charge of robbery of a female which took place at the early hours of 14 August 2010 on the street. The victim was talking on her cell phone when the Defendant snatched her handbag from behind. When she tried to hold onto her handbag, he pulled her handbag with force. As a result she fell down. A passer-by gave chase whilst the victim made a report to the police.

2.The police vehicle arrived and toured her around to look for the Defendant. She spotted him nearby. The police arrested him. Her handbag, with its contents intact, was retrieved from a park nearby. After arrest and caution, he admitted robbing her.

Defendant’s personal circumstances and mitigation

3.The Defendant is now 20 years of age. After F. 3, he completed a 3-year diploma course on automotive technology. He then worked intermittently as an engineering apprentice at the airport. His performance is commended by his employer and colleagues. I am told that he was prepared to plead guilty after arrest and in for a consequential criminal record. His job will not keep anyone with a criminal record because of certain regulations. I do not quite understand as he has already had a criminal record of common assault in 2008. After resigning in September or October 2010, he became a self-employed goods van driver.

4.He has done community work on and off from 2004 to 2009. He toys with ketamine and cocaine at times.

5.A training centre report has been called. He is considered suitable for detention there. I am told that he first opts for a jail term, but then feels rather ambivalent between prison and training centre.

Sentencing considerations

6.There are no sentencing tariffs for unarmed robberies. The customary sentence involves a loss of liberty. Counsel in mitigation has put forward 3 cases, two of theft by snatching (The Queen v Saldana Alca Jose CACC 655/1996, HKSAR v Chen Juting HCMA 705/1999) and one of robbery (香港特別行政區訴 黃麟凱DCCC 28/2009). Those cases suggest that a single robber who snatched and then pushed the victim down can expect around 2 ½ years’ imprisonment.

7.Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap. 221, provides:

(1)  No court shall sentence a person of or over 16 and under 21 years of age to imprisonment unless the court is of opinion that no other method of dealing with such person is appropriate; and for the purpose of determining whether any other method of dealing with any such person is appropriate the court shall obtain and consider information about the circumstances, and shall take into account any information before the court which is relevant to the character of such person and his physical and mental condition.

(1A)  This section shall not apply to a person who has been convicted of any offence which is declared to be an excepted offence by Schedule 3.

8.The offence of robbery is an excepted offence by Schedule 3. The sentencing court is to consider prison sentence not as a deferred option but on a par with training centre.

Sentencing this Defendant

9.Given the lack of aggravating factors, the robbery here is not of such a severity that only prison sentence can address the interest of the Defendant and the community. The Defendant has no sense of direction in life. I am of the view that a regime of detention at the training centre, together with its aftercare supervision, is beneficial both to him and the community. This is the order I now make.