HKSAR v. Ng Chi Hang, Charles

DCCC223/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 223 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant in this case pleaded guilty to an offence of robbery. The offence was committed on 18 January 2011 at Tai Po in the New Territories.

2.At 11.55 am on 18 January 2011, the victim in this case, a 27 year old lady, was returning to her home on 19th Floor of Hei Wo House in Tai Wo Estate in Tai Po. When she was outside the flat and was about to get in, the defendant suddenly pushed her into her home from behind. Inside the flat he used his right arm to strangle the victim and also pointed a 6 cm folding knife to her declaring robbery.

3.The victim took $350 from her wallet and gave it to the defendant. At this juncture, the victim’s father who was suffering from eyesight and hearing problems went out from the bedroom of the flat and, in response to this, the defendant escorted the victim out of the flat and requested her to withdraw more money from a nearby bank.

4.The defendant and the victim then went downstairs to a nearby ATM of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. The victim withdrew $2,000 from the ATM and gave it to the defendant. After that the defendant took out a card and asked the victim to write her phone number on it. The victim complied with this request and after that the defendant left and the victim reported the matter to the police.

5.At the time of the offence the defendant was wearing a baseball cap, a mask and a dark jacket. Subsequently a police officer on patrol spotted the defendant wearing a dark jacket as described by the victim. This was on Kwong Fuk Road on 24 January 2011, some six days after the robbery. The defendant was arrested and cautioned and, under caution, the defendant admitted having robbed about $2,000 from a female. He also admitted that he used a cutter to rob the female and that he was wearing the jacket which he was wearing on the day of his arrest at that material time.

6.Later the defendant was taken to his home by the police - his home in Tai Wo estate and he assisted the police to seize the cap that he was wearing on the day in question, a sweater, a pair of jeans and a pair of black shoes and they were seized as exhibits. The defendant admitted that he was wearing those items at the time of the offence.

7.The defendant was subsequently interviewed and the interview was video recorded. He admitted in that recording that he had committed the robbery. He said that he committed the robbery because he was unemployed. He said that he had left home at about 11 o’clock on the day in question and saw the victim at a shopping centre. He followed her to her flat and robbed her and he used a cutter to commit the robbery. He said that the victim gave him a few hundred dollars and, later on, she withdrew $2,000 from an ATM machine and gave that to him.

8.The defendant said that he asked the victim to write down her phone number because he realised that she was not rich and he wanted to return the money to her in the future. A CCTV tape of the area was seized which showed various aspects of the robbery.

9.The defendant has one previous conviction. He appeared before the court on 13 September 2007 for a comparatively minor offence of shop lifting and he was dealt with by way of a fine.

10.I adjourned the case previously to have the benefit of a probation officer’s report and I now have that report. This report reveals that the defendant is 33 years of age. He lives in a public housing unit and he has resided there since 1999. The report reflects a rather sad childhood. His parents separated and he has had little contact with his parents in recent years. He was educated to Form 5 level.

11.After leaving school the defendant started employment and claimed that he maintained a stable work pattern. That was until he suffered a leg injury when working as a health care assistant in 2008. The report states that thereafter his leg pain persisted and he was unable to sleep at night. In order to deal with this insomnia he began to take cough medicine. He denied he was addicted to it but he admitted that he did take cough medicine from time to time and he was taking it at the time he got into trouble in 2007.

12.In recent times the defendant has been unemployed and he claims that it was because of this unemployment that he was tempted to act impulsively and commit the present offence. As counsel for the defendant has rightly acknowledged this is a very serious offence.

13.It must have caused the victim great distress and anxiety. She was followed to her home. She was followed in the lift going up to her flat. The defendant forced his way into her home where she resides with her elderly father. At one stage, he used his right arm to strangle the victim and pointed the folding knife to declare robbery.

14.I am told in mitigation - and it is not challenged by the prosecution - that this was a folding knife and it was folded at the time.

15.There are certain unusual features of the case. The defendant was arrested by a police officer six days after the robbery and he was spotted because the police officer purported to recognise the jacket which the defendant was wearing.

16.I have seen the colour photographs which were taken at the time of the offence and there are no unusual features on this jacket. There was no identification of the defendant and yet notwithstanding that he openly admitted his involvement in the offence and described exactly what he did.

17.The other unusual feature is at the end of the incident the defendant asked the victim to write down her phone number and he states that this was because he realised that she was not rich and he wanted to return the money to her in the future. I have placed before me some letters written by the defendant and his parents. He has not been in contact with his parents for a number of years but following this incident they have got in contact with him and are in court today to show their support and encouragement. Also in their letters they state that the defendant lacked the parental care which most children enjoy and they take the blame on themselves for their neglect in this regard. In the letter from the defendant he promises that nothing like this is going to happen in the future.

18.As counsel has rightly acknowledged for sentencing purposes the Court of Appeal have laid down stringent guidelines as to how cases such as this should be dealt with. I have taken into account everything that has been urged upon me in mitigation and I might say that everything that could possibly be said on behalf of the defendant has been most eloquently argued in court before me.

19.I have decided that the appropriate starting point for this offence is a sentence of 6 years. The defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third to reflect his guilty plea. The defendant will therefore go to prison for 4 years.