HKSAR v. Nadeem Abdul and Others

DCCC903/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 903 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The three defendants pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery.

2.At about 2 am on 19 April 2011, the three defendants boarded PW1’s taxi.  D1 took the front seat while the other two defendants took the back seats. 

3.D1 told the taxi driver to go to a nearby vehicle recycle yard.  When approaching Ping Kwai Road, D1 told the taxi driver to stop. 

4.One of the defendants at the back seat grabbed PW1’s neck from behind.  D1 took away some $1,000 from PW1’s shirt pocket, while the other defendant took away a coin box containing about $300, a mobile phone and a leather belt from PW1.  The three defendants then left the scene.  

5.A report was made to the police.  The police stopped the three defendants at Tin Shui Wai rail train station which was about 800 meters from Ping Kwai Road. 

6.The three defendants were searched by the police.

D1	Trousers pocket	21 banknotes, HK$940, 83 coins, HK$223.30
D2	Left shoe	A MOBILE PHONE
D3	NOTHING WAS FOUND

7.Under caution:-

D1	He was on his way to gamble with D2 and D3. The money with him was his own wages from his employment, but he could not provide the detail of his employment. The coins were intended to be used for gambling.
D2	He went out for a walk with D1 and D3. He found the mobile phone at the rail train station and he kept it for his own use. He could not explain why he kept it in his shoe.
D3	He denied taking the Taxi.

8.In mitigation, I am told that all the defendants have clear record.  D1 and D3 are both 26 years old while D3 is 31 years old. They were all from Pakistan.  D1 and 2 came to Hong Kong to seek political protection.  D3 first came as an illegal immigrant and later also sought political protection.  D2 had abandoned his torture claim some 6 months ago and he is waiting to be repatriated back to Pakistan.

9.D1 is single while D2 and 3 both have 6 months and 3 months old babies from their current relationships in Hong Kong. 

10.D1 has indicated his intention to give evidence against D2 and 3 should they both plead not guilty to the charge.  Today I am told that D2’s instruction to plead guilty was as early as October and that his intention to  plead guilty has nothing to do with D1’s indication.  D3 indicated his guilty plea in early November and therefore D1’s assistance to the prosecution is not required.

11.Both D2 and D3’s counsels have referred me to the following two cases in mitigation:

1. HKSAR v Dhillon Kenneth Simon, CACC90/2002.

In this case, the applicant grabbed the taxi driver’s neck from behind at about 8 pm in Fei Ngo Shan Road, took away $360 and fled. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 3 years and 4 months.

2. HKSAR v Singh Sandeep, Brar Gurwindeer Singh, CACC112/2002.

The applicant was convicted of a joint charge of attempted robbery and was each sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. The incident took place at 10 pm in the Industrial area of Tsing Yi island. One of the applicants tried to snatch the driver’s handbag but was resisted by the taxi driver. They fled and were found by the police in a nearby industrial building.

The Court of Appeal also commented that the sentence was lenient.

12.In both cases of taxi robbery,

(i) there were no weapons being used;

(ii) no injury was caused to the taxi driver.

13.As to the present case, I accept that the taxi driver’s property was recovered and he suffered no loss, but because of this incident he must have suffered a shock and also loss of business.  The incident was taken place in a quiet place at about 2 am in the morning where he could not possibly seek help from anyone.

14.I also accept that there was no weapon being used and the taxi driver did not suffer any injury. 

15.As quote in CACC90/2002, the Court of Appeal said that:

“Taxi drivers are particularly vulnerable to robbery, especially those who ply for hire late at night or in the early hours of the morning or who pick up or drop passengers in quiet locations.”

16.Sir Alan Huggins VP also said in the R v Li Lun Hoi, [1983] Cr App No. 1387 of 1983,     

“That Taxi drivers must be protected and we will not interfere in the normal case of taxi robberies with sentences of 5 and 6 years.”

17.Against this background, a deterrent sentence is needed in order to send a message to the public because taxi robbery indeed is a very serious offence. 

18.Having considered all the mitigating factors and the nature of this case, I found that a starting point of 5 years is appropriate.  I reduce the sentence to 3 years and 4 months to reflect each of the defendant’s guilty plea.  I order each defendant be sentenced to 3 years and 4 months.