HKSAR v. Wong Lin Hung and Others

HCCC136/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 136 OF 2010

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: This would have been a well-planned robbery had the police not acted as quickly as they did to move in and arrest the defendants. There is no doubt at all that the 1st defendant was the mastermind of this offence. The planning that was involved was very careful in that they spent many days following or looking out for the victim, trying to find out his route and time of appearance at his office. There is no doubt at all in my mind that had the police not moved in as they did, the victim would have been robbed once he parked his car on the way to his office in the building where his office was.

The 1st defendant had not only carefully planned this robbery, he had armed himself with a stun-gun. He had also got the 3rd defendant to bring along restraints in order to tie up the victim.

The sentence that I have to consider has to reflect not only the horror of the community in relation to robberies of this kind but also to act as a deterrent for people using stun-guns to commit robbery, particularly as one of the defendants told this court, whilst giving evidence, stun-guns are readily available across the border.

I have considered all the cases which have been submitted before me and I consider that an appropriate sentence in the case of the 1st defendant is one of 10 years’ imprisonment for the conspiracy to rob charge. For possession of the stun-gun, I agree with Mr Ng that it is of a low to medium voltage and I therefore consider that a one-year term of imprisonment is appropriate to be served concurrent to the 10 years’ imprisonment he is to serve for the conspiracy to rob charge.

In relation to the 2nd defendant, there is no evidence that he knew that the stun-gun was to be brought or that the restraints would be brought by the 3rd defendant. However, he must have reasonably foreseen that some violence or restraint would be used on the victim. I agree with Mr Marray that the Mo Kwong Sang guidelines would apply in this case and so I would start at a 5-year starting point.

I would also consider the aggravating features in this case because of the potential violence which would be inflicted on the victim and that there were several of them committing this robbery. Also, the robbery was planned to have been committed in the premises of this private commercial building.

Therefore, I would consider an appropriate sentence in this case of 8 years’ imprisonment on the 2nd defendant.

The 3rd defendant, similarly, there is no evidence that he knew of the presence of the stun-gun. Still, he should reasonably have foreseen that some violence would have been done on the victim as he brought along restraints with him. These were properly prepared restraints and they were obviously meant to quickly serve as hand restraints and leg restraints for the potential victim.

I consider that in his case, an 8-year term of imprisonment is a reasonable one.

In the case of the 4th accused, I accept that there is no evidence he knew of the presence of the stun-gun or restraints, but it is reasonable again in his case to anticipate that he must have foreseen that some violence would be used on the victim. It was a carefully planned robbery in which he played a very important part. He was in constant contact with his accomplices at the commercial building where they were waiting for the arrival of the potential victim.

In his case, I consider an appropriate starting point would be one of 8 years’ imprisonment. But he did plead guilty after the voir dire so I will give him a quarter off the sentence, 25 per cent off, which would be he would be sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment.

Please refer to CACC52/2011 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.