CRIMINAL CASE NO. 269 OF 2011
COURT: On 3 October 2010, you attempted to rob an elderly couple outside the Kowloon Hospital in Waterloo Road. You pointed a cutter at the female victim, as a result of which she sustained a superficial laceration to her chin. Her husband had the presence of mind to scream at you, as a result of which you fled empty-handed.
As a result of the presence of an alert off-duty woman police constable who was following about 20 metres behind, you were chased and, in due course, intercepted and arrested and the cutter retrieved from the road. You then made an immediate admission, under caution, of the offence at the scene. In a subsequent video-recorded interview, you made full admissions that you were attempting to snatch the female’s handbag.
You were taken before the Magistrates Court on 5 October 2010 and again, two weeks later, on 19 October 2010. On the latter occasion, an application for bail was made to the presiding magistrate by counsel acting on behalf of the Duty Lawyer Service. It was objected to by a senior court prosecutor, as one might expect, given that it was an extremely serious offence in which you had been caught effectively red-handed and made full admissions, both at the scene and, subsequently, at the police station.
The court prosecutor said this, according to the record of proceedings in the Magistrates Court:
“It was a serious case, strong evidence and, sir, I see that the defendant has previous convictions which are similar, in 2006, where he received 44 months, subsequently reduced to 40 months, in the District Court. It’s likely that he will repeat the offence if bail is granted to him, and he has a number of trafficking and dangerous drugs possession offences as well. It looks like that he has been addicted and therefore he may need to look for money and to commit further offences if bail is granted to him. That’s my submission, sir.”
Notwithstanding this rather obvious and sensible objection to bail, the magistrate granted bail to you in the sum of $5,000 cash, with a cash surety in a like amount.
With great respect to the magistrate, bail should never have been granted to this defendant for this offence and had it not been granted, I would only be dealing with one rather than two offences.
As it was, the court prosecutor’s submission proved to be prophetic for, just over six weeks after being granted bail, you committed a second offence of robbery on a 51-year-old female in Mongkok. Again, you used a cutter which, on this occasion, caused lacerations to both of the victim’s hands for which she was hospitalised for one night. Again, you were caught red-handed and, again, you admitted the offence, under caution, at the scene and later made full admissions in a subsequent video-recorded interview.
Although the 1st charge is an attempted robbery, it was an all but successful robbery in which you had announced your intention but took to your heels before you could seize the victim’s handbag. Nevertheless, it must have been extremely frightening for the victim, having a cutter displayed and pointed at her face, resulting in fact in a superficial laceration to her chin.
The starting point for sentence for this particular offence, notwithstanding the superficial injury, is 5 years’ imprisonment.
The second offence is very much more serious. It is, in my view, aggravated by the nasty injuries to the lady victim concerned but, in particular, by the fact that this offence was a repeat offence committed at a time when you were on bail for the earlier attempted robbery. Notwithstanding that you should never have been granted bail in the first place, it would make a mockery of the system of granting bail if I were not to reflect the fact that this second similar offence was committed whilst you were on bail for the first offence.
In my judgment, the appropriate starting point for this particular offence should be one of 7 years’ imprisonment.
Your counsel, Mr Wong, has made a full plea in mitigation on your behalf. Realistically, the only real mitigation which can affect the sentence is your early plea of guilty. In respect of both starting points, you will get a full one-third discount, having pleaded guilty to both offences on 22 July of this year before the Magistrates Court, resulting in you being committed to me for sentence.
Accordingly, the sentence on the 1st charge will be reduced to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment on account of your plea, and the sentence on the 2nd charge to 4 years and 8 months. Giving appropriate consideration to the principle of totality, in the circumstances of this particular case, I shall order 2 years and 8 months of the sentence on the second offence to run consecutively to the 3 years and 4 months on the first offence, the remainder to run concurrently.
Accordingly, the total sentence I pass upon you is 6 years’ imprisonment.