HKSAR v. Tsang Wai Yip

DCCC55/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 55 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery.

2.The particulars of the offence are on 9 November 2010 outside Shop No. 113, East Point City, Tseung Kwan O, he robbed a lady called Cheung Tak-sin of her handbag and its contents. The bag contained keys, cheques, eight bank cards and $2,000 in cash.

3.The facts of the case are that on 9 November 2010, shortly after midnight, the victim, Miss Cheung, who is 37 years of age, left the Hang Hau MTR station and walked towards her residence at Residence Oasis, Tseung Kwan O.

4.When she was walking on the footbridge between The Lane and East Point City, she heard the defendant calling her from behind, he shouted out “Miss”. She turned around on the footbridge, looked at the defendant, realised that she did not know him and ignored him. When she got to a position outside Shop No. 113 of East Point City, the defendant approached her from behind and pulled at her handbag.

5.He told the victim that he intended to rob her. The victim held on to the handbag with both hands. There was a struggle. The defendant pulled at the victim’s jacket and scarf and in the course of the struggle, the victim’s watch fell to the ground.

6.The defendant eventually pulled strongly at the handbag and the victim lost her grip. As a result, the defendant fell onto the ground with the handbag. The defendant got up and fled with the handbag. The victim gave chase but lost track of the defendant.

7.The victim sustained minor injures - an abrasion on her face and also on her left hand.

8.A CCTV recording at the Hang Hau MTR station revealed that the defendant had followed the victim when she left the Hang Hau MTR station, and the CCTV of East Point City and The Lane showed footage of the robbery itself.

9.The following month, on 10 December 2010, at lunch time, an officer saw the defendant outside a convenience store in the Yat Tung Estate in Tung Chung. He was not in possession of an ID card and he led the police officers to his residence in Yu Yat House in the Yat Tung Estate.

10.Inside the residence, the officer noticed a blue sweater with a pattern similar to the one worn by the defendant at that time of the robbery.

11.The defendant was arrested and immediately admitted the robbery and stealing the handbag at the shopping centre in Tseung Kwan O. The handbag was recovered from the wardrobe of the defendant’s bedroom.

12.In a video recorded interview, the defendant admitted that he had followed the victim at the shopping centre and then robbed her of her handbag. He said that he then fled by taxi to Mongkok and then took a further taxi back home to Tung Chung.

13.He told the police that he had sold the mobile phone, spent all the cash and thrown away the bank cards. He said he retained the handbag as he did not know where he could sell it.

14.The following day, the victim was seen again by the police and she identified the bag recovered from the bedroom of the defendant as being the one robbed from her on 9 November 2010.

15.The defendant has appeared in court on two previous occasions, in May 1994 and April 2001. In 1994, he was before the court for taking a conveyance without authority, driving without a licence and using a motor vehicle without insurance and was dealt with by way of a fine and community service order.

16.In April 2001, he was before the court for two offences, one of wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm and the 2ndcharge of common assault, and for those matters he was also made the subject of a community service order, on this occasion for 240 hours.

17.In mitigation, I have been told by counsel that the defendant is aged 36, he was educated to Form 5 standard, he has worked previously as a salesman and driver between 1994 and 2010, and has been unemployed since June 2010.

18.It was pointed out that although he has previous convictions, he has never been to prison previously.

19.I am told that the defendant has had very difficult personal circumstances to cope with over the last few years. He was married in 2005 and in March 2007 there was a daughter born. A few months after that, the defendant’s business failed and he was declared bankrupt in August 2007.

20.I am told that his wife was a beautician, was unhappy about the financial difficulties and the fact that the defendant was unable to provide for her, and she sued for divorce and they were divorced in 2009.

21.I am told that the defendant was desperate to save his marriage but failed to do so. I am also told that what was particularly anxious for the defendant was the fact that his wife took away their daughter, who is now 4. Whilst unemployed, he was larger responsible for looking after the daughter and since the divorce his wife had made it very difficult for him to have access to her.

22.I am told that because of these facts he was very very depressed and resorted to taking Zopiclone in order to deal with his insomnia. I am told that his domestic life left him totally unmotivated and he lost all direction. I am told that he even tried to injure himself by cutting his wrists his depression became so bad. I am told that this situation was made worse when he discovered that his ex-wife is now pregnant and has remarried.

23.I am told that on the day of the offence he went to Macau. He took $2,000 which he been entrusted to him for household expenses. It had been given to him by his parents. In Macau he lost all the money and become depressed and started taking Zopiclone on the day of the offence.

24.I am told that when he returned to Hong Kong from Macau, he was unwilling to face the reality of the situation and also unwilling to face his parents and wandered around somewhat aimlessly. He wandered around various areas and eventually ended up East Point City, a place to which he had gone previously with his wife. I am told that it was there he suddenly noticed the victim and had a sudden idea to try and snatch her handbag. I am told this offence was completely unpremeditated.

25.I am told by counsel for the defence that the CCTV coverage of the incident shows that the incident happened very quickly, less than a minute. It was pointed out in mitigation that there was no weapon used in this incident and there was no direct assault on the victim.

26.The prosecution case is that there was a struggle between the victim and the defendant when the defendant was trying to pull the handbag from the victim and she was trying to keep hold of the handbag.

27.The defendant also admitted that he pulled at the victim’s jacket and scarf in the course of the struggle. Although injuries were sustained by the victim, they were of a minor nature, an abrasion to the face and to the left hand.

28.I am told that the parents of the defendant are in court today to offer their support to the defendant and they would be in a position to confirm what is urged upon me by counsel, that they say that this offence occurred because of the depression suffered by the defendant because of the break-down of his marriage and his subsequent total loss of direction.

29.I am told that in January of this year the defendant consulted a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist confirmed that the defendant is suffering from major depressive disorder and hypnotic dependent syndrome. The report from the psychiatrist, Dr Stephen Ng, says that the defendant admitted to him that he was not able to stop using Zopiclone and its use has making his moods even more depressed.

30.He recommended that the defendant receive out-patient psychiatric treatment at least every 1 or 2 weeks for at least 12 to 18 months, and this would involve treatment of the depression with anti-depression medication and the detoxification of his hypnotic use.

31.I am told and it is confirmed in the report of the psychiatrist that the defendant is extremely remorseful for his involvement in this offence.

32.The offence to which the defendant has pleaded guilty is clearly a serious offence, it is an offence of robbery, exacerbated by the fact that the victim in the case is a lady. She was making her way home shortly after midnight and was attacked on a footbridge or having crossed a footbridge going to her home. It must have been a terrifying experience for her and people in that position have to be protected by the courts.

33.I accept what has been urged upon me by mitigation, that there was minimum force used for an offence of this kind and that no weapon was used. The defendant has pleaded guilty and immediately admitted the offence when he was arrested by the police.

34.I have taken into account the defendant’s depression and his unfortunate domestic circumstances over the last few years, and I have no doubt that they contributed to the defendant’s sudden decision to commit this offence.

35.Having taken account of the mitigating factors urged upon me, I have decided that an appropriate starting point for this offence would be a sentence of 3½ years. The defendant will be given credit for his guilty plea and that will be reduced to a sentence of 2 years and 4 months.