HKSAR v. Ko Wai Lun and Others

DCCC1144/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1144 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has been convicted on his own plea of one charge of robbery.

2.The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant disclose that shortly before 3 o’clock in the morning on 16 August at a playground in Victoria Park in Causeway Bay, the two victims, a Miss So, aged 28, and a Miss Yan, aged 18, were having a chat.  There were lights on in the playground, and they placed their property, a Louis Vuitton purse, valued at $2,300, and an iPhone, and PW2’s purse, valued at $1,000, on one of the swings in the park. 

3.The victims noticed four young men enter the park.  They were the defendant, who is 19 years of age, and three other youths who have pleaded guilty to this offence also and have been dealt with by the court, and two of them were aged 15 and one of them was aged 16.  The defendant and his three other youths with him then left the playground a short time later. 

4.About 30 minutes later the two ladies in the park noticed the younger defendants, D1 to D3, returning to the playground, and they took up a standing position about 6 to 7 metres away from the victims.  The victims felt uneasy and the elder of the two ladies, Miss So, she took back the property which had been previously placed on the swing. 

5.After 5 minutes one of the defendants, the 1st defendant, suddenly approached the first victim and proceeded to snatch away the two purses and a pack of cigarettes that she was holding.

6.The 2nd defendant grabbed hold of her neck from behind, and this meant that she was unable to cry out for assistance. 

7.The 3rd defendant, he grabbed hold of the younger victim’s neck from behind and pulled her down to the floor from the swing she was sitting on.

8.The 1st defendant successfully managed to snatch away the two purses and the packet of cigarettes held by the first victim.  He further attempted to snatch away the iPhone that she was holding.  The victim struggled and he failed to get that phone.  The 1st defendant then swore at the first victim and left the playground together with the 2nd and 3rd defendant. 

9.Whilst all this was going on, the defendant who is in court today, D4, was standing outside the playground acting as a lookout for the other three defendants.

10.The first victim’s purse contained $300 in cash, a Hong Kong ID Card, an Octopus card, and two bank cards.  The second victim’s purse contained cash of about $400, Hong Kong ID Card, and a home visit Permit.  It also contained an Octopus card and a bank card.

11.The two victims immediately reported the matter to the police and gave descriptions of the suspects. 

12.At about 0450 hours officers were patrolling on Spring Garden Lane when they spotted the four defendants whose appearance matched the descriptions they had been given.

13.The search of the 1st defendant came up with the Vivien Westwood purse belonging to the second victim.

14.The 2nd defendant was arrested and, under caution, he said all four of them robbed the two ladies for fun.  He admitted grabbing hold of the neck of the first victim from behind whilst the second victim was grabbed hold of by 3rd defendant.  The 1st defendant proceeded to snatch away the purses.  He said that D4 was acting as a lookout; and once they left the playground they started to distribute the cash found in the purses amongst themselves and each one of them received approximately $170.  The rest of the property - the various cards in the purses - were thrown away into the sea after they arrived at Wan Chai Ferry Pier by taxi.

15.D1 said he kept the purse of the second victim and D3 kept the other purse.  That purse was recovered from D3.

16.The 4th defendant, under caution, admitted that he acted as a lookout; and under caution, the defendant said that the idea to rob the victims were formed and agreed between the four defendants when they first entered the playground; and they went on to confirm what they had already told the police when they were originally arrested.

17.Apart from the two purses found on the defendants as well as the pack of cigarettes, all other property belonging to the two victims was not recovered.

18.The defendant has a clear record.  He is 19 years of age and was born in Hong Kong.  He has completed Form 5 education at the Aberdeen Technical School, and since then he has worked in various jobs. He lives with his parents.

19.I adjourned the case on the last occasion so that I could have the benefit of reports.  I now have those reports which have been prepared by the Correctional Services Department.

20.The report states that the defendant grew up in a working class family.  His father worked all along as a bus driver, whilst his mother was engaged in part-time jobs in order to supplement the family income.  The defendant was mainly taken care of by his parental grandmother. Although she was a caring person, she was lenient in child discipline and parental supervision, and guidance was regarded as insufficient and ineffective.  His school performance was scarcely acceptable whilst he was at primary school, and it got worse when he went to secondary school.  He indulged in playing computer games with some dubious peers, including the 3rd defendant in this offence.  After completing his education, he worked on-and-off at different jobs, and at his leisure he liked to go to cyber-cafes together with D3, and later came to know more undesirable peers.  On a few occasions between July 2009 and August 2010 he began to sniff ketamine.

21.I am told that the defendant is mentally and physically fit for detention in a detention centre; and the Commissioner for Correctional Services deems that that will be the appropriate centre to place the defendant.

22.I note in respect of the three younger defendants, they were sent to the rehabilitation centre.

23.Today, in court, I have had placed before me various certificates and a letter from a charitable organisation in connection with the defendant, and the letter asked for leniency.  It states that the defendant has definitely learnt a harsh lesson and is very remorseful for his involvement in the current event.

24.Were the defendant a few years older, this offence would attract a significant custodial sentence.  This was a cowardly act.  It must have been a terrifying experience for the two victims alone in a park at 3 o’clock in the morning; and of course they would have to go to the extreme inconvenience of having their Identity Cards replaced as well as cancelling and replacing the various bank cards which they had.

25.I have considered very carefully everything that has been said and all the reports that have been submitted; and I have decided that detention centre is an appropriate sentence in this case.