HKSAR v. Tsang Man Tat

DCCC862/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 862 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant, you pleaded guilty to one offence of robbery, contrary to section 10, and one offence of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. You admitted the facts and I convicted you.

2.The facts were as follows.

Charge 1

3.Around 2050 hours on 24 June last, PW1 was on her way home alone.  When she arrived at Tin Ming House, Tin Ping Estate, Sheung Shui, she took a lift to the 12th floor with you.  Upon reaching there, she walked out and you followed.  You grabbed PW1’s hair from behind and slapped her head several times.  During the struggle, she fell to the ground. You then took her wallet which contained among other things $350, PW1’s China re-entry card and an Octopus card.  She suffered mild tenderness to her head but no apparent injuries.  A report was made to the police.

Charge 2

4.Around 2245 hours on 27 June last, PW2 was on her way home.  She reached Noble Hill, 38 Ma Sik Road, Fanling, when you suddenly approached her and asked for a chat.  She ignored you and walked away.  You snatched her handbag which contained a mobile phone, a wallet with $234.90, an ID card and an Octopus card and fled.  You fled, but PW1(PW2?) chased you, and with the assistance of other pedestrians, you were subdued and the police was called.

5.Arrested and cautioned, you admitted to committing the offence being short of money.

6.In a subsequent video recorded interview, you admitted the following:

(1) On the evening of 24 June you were at Tin Ming House and followed a student into the lift to the 12th floor;

(2) You exited the lift, pushed her and pulled her hair to snatch her wallet;

(3) You took $350 from the wallet and dropped it into the toilet;

(4) On 27 June last, outside Noble Hill, you said you told the victim you wanted to get to know her;

(5) You snatched her handbag and ran out into the road;

(6) You were stopped by some pedestrians;

(7) You had thrown the handbag into the bushes at the roadside.

7.In a subsequent ID parade, PW1 positively identified you.

8.You admitted to six previous convictions, three of which involved dishonesty. 

9.Miss Chan for the prosecution produced two sentencing authorities, HKSAR v Ting Chiu and another, CACC174/2003, that was an armed robbery, but there was more than one defendant involved and the sentence was said to be 4 years; also the case of HKSAR v Chan Sin Leung, CACC48/2008(2006?), where 3 years was approved of for a street robbery.

10.Miss Hung on your behalf entered mitigation. She told me that you are now 24 years of age, single, living alone and had been employed as an internet shop assistant earning some $6,000 a month.  After your parents divorced in 1999, you lived in fairly poor circumstances with your father who was in receipt of CSSA.  In August of last year your father died and you had to live alone and fend for yourself.  You worked at various occupations, the last being the one I have referred to. 

11.In June of this year you were fined $3,500 and you had to borrow money so you were in debt.  Having lost contact with your mother, you had no family to turn to.  However, I am told that you are now being reunited with your mother who came to visit you whilst you were on remand.

12.You expressed your apologies to the victims. Miss Hung told me that you were very co-operative from the outset and that you are unlikely to re-offend in this way again.  She read out a letter which you had written to the court which confirmed the points made in mitigation.  She too produced some sentencing authorities.  I only wish to comment on one and that is Mak Chi Wing v The Queen, that is CACC 419/1972.  In that case, 2 years for robbery was imposed after trial.  But that, in my opinion, is a stale authority; it is 40 years old and has no relevance today.  I will not go through the rest individually; I have noted what they say and taken them into account.  Of course each offence must be decided on its own particular facts.

13.Miss Chan told me that the victims were aged 18 and 16 respectively, both were students.  That, in my opinion, is of some relevance as you were targeting girls. 

14.I turn now to the sentence.  These are two serious offences.  The first is a robbery where no weapon was used but a certain amount of violence was offered.  The victim was an 18-year-old female student whom you followed out of the lift and assaulted her for the purpose of taking her wallet.  I note from the facts that you pulled her hair and hit her head several times.  Fortunately, she appears not to have been injured. 

15.The second offence involves snatching the purse or wallet of a 16-year-old schoolgirl.  There was of course no violence used in that offence, that is why it was amended to theft.

16.You are a young man of 24 with a record which is not of the best.  In your favour, I note your apology to the victims and your co-operation with the police from the outset.  I note also that you pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity.  It appears that you have had a difficult life with perhaps a lack of parental supervision.  It is to be welcomed that you have now been reunited with your mother. 

17.Taking all matters into account, in respect of the robbery, I take as a starting point 39 months, 3 years and 3 months, reduced to 26 months for your plea of guilty.  In respect of the theft offence, I take a starting point 15 months, reduced to 10 months for your plea of guilty.  I do apply the principle of totality.  4 months of that sentence will be served consecutively and 6 months will be served concurrently, that is a total of 30 months’ imprisonment.