HKSAR v. Law Chi Yin

DCCC1201/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1201 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

2.The Summary of Facts which the Defendant admitted disclosed that in the early hours of 22 September 2010, he first entered a 7-Eleven Convenience Store to make a purchase. About half an hour later, the Defendant returned to the store and offered to buy a bottle of water. When PW1, the female staff of the store, opened the drawer of a cash register to complete the transaction, the Defendant attempted to grab the money inside the drawer. PW1, however, managed to close it. The Defendant then forced into the cashier counter and took out the drawer with cash of HK$1,531 odd. Meanwhile, PW1 shouted for help and her colleague, PW2, came to her assistance. The two of them had a struggle with the Defendant during which the drawer with the money dropped onto the floor. The Defendant then fled.

3.However, the struggle was witnessed by a civic-minded passer-by, PW3. PW3 gave chase until the Defendant agreed to leave behind the bag he was carrying with him. The bag had some of the Defendant’s personal documents in it. Later when the Defendant was arrested, he made an admission under caution.

4.The Defendant is now aged 46 and is single. He has been before the court on 29 occasions when on some of those, a number of offences were dealt with at the same time. His convictions are mostly in relation to drugs and theft. This is his first robbery conviction.

5.This morning, the court was given, through Ms. Chow acting for the Defendant, a letter written by the Defendant in which he admitted full responsibility for what he has done.

6.Ms. Chow also told the court that because of the Defendant’s substance-dependence syndrome, the Defendant has been admitted to Tai Po Hospital on a number of occasions. Further, owing to his condition, the Defendant was not able to seek any employment and has been living on public assistance.

7.Insofar as the present offence is concerned, Ms. Chow said that the Defendant acted alone and no weapon was used. It was not a pre-meditated offence as the Defendant was, at the time, carrying with him a bag with his personal documents inside, and he did not commit any offence on his first entry into the store. Moreover, no one was injured although PW1 was frightened, and no loss was caused to the store as the HK$1,500 odd was left at the scene. In short, Ms. Chow submitted that it was not the worst kind of robbery and asked for as lenient a sentence as possible.

8.The present case is a case of unarmed robbery and the established principle is that this should be sentenced less severely than an armed robbery as what was contemplated in R v Mo Kwong-sang [1981] HKLR 610. I note that the case of HKSAR v Ting Chiu & Anor [2003] 3 HKLRD 378 is often referred to in the sentencing for unarmed robberies. In the case of Ting Chiu, a middle-aged couple was robbed by 4 males while they were hiking around midday, with properties taken away from them. However, in HKSAR v Tsang Wai Man, CACC 288/2006 (unreported), the Court of Appeal observed that Ting Chiu’s case was not a guideline case for the sentencing of unarmed robbers in terms of the length of sentence to be imposed and that every case must be determined on its own facts.

9.In the present case, I accept that the robbery committed by this Defendant was of a less serious kind in that he acted alone and did not use any weapon at the time. In terms of the violence employed, it would appear from the Summary of Facts that such was directed towards the taking of the drawer rather than the staff inside the store. I also accept Ms. Chow’s submission that it was not a well-planned robbery for apart from carrying a bag with his personal documents inside, the Defendant was wearing a pair of slippers at the time which would, no doubt, slow him down in case of a chase. The fact that the Defendant had entered the store and made a purchase before would also render it more likely for his image to be captured by any CCTV which might have been installed inside the store.

10.Having taken into account all these facts and that the robbery was committed inside a store and not in any open public area, I consider a starting point of 4 years to be appropriate. The Defendant pleaded guilty and he will be given a one-third reduction for his plea. Other than that, I do not see any other factors which would warrant any further reduction in sentence.

11.I therefore impose a term of 32 months on the Defendant for this robbery charge.