CRIMINAL CASE NO. 388 OF 2011
COURT: This defendant was born on 18 September 1993 and he is now just 18 years of age. Today before me he has pleaded guilty to two offences, namely, robbery, contrary to section 10(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210; and (2), wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 17(a) of the Offences against the Persons Ordinance, Cap. 212.
Both offences occurred on 26 May of this year in a public toilet at the Cheung Hang Shopping Centre located in the Cheung Hang Estate, Tsing Yi.
In the case of both offences the victim was the same, a 57 year old man who was previously unknown to this defendant.
The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant today reveals that at about 2 pm the victim was inside the public toilet on the 6th Floor of those premises.
The defendant, who was masked, attempted to take the victim’s mobile telephone from his pocket. There was a struggle and in the course of this the defendant produced a fruit knife which he then used to stab the victim, once in the left arm and once in the abdomen.
In consequence of this the victim fell to the floor. Not satisfied with what had occurred the defendant proceeded to kick him. Taking the victim’s mobile telephone he attempted to flee. A passer-by alerted by the victim’s cries for assistance gave chase and ultimately the defendant was apprehended. The police were called and the defendant was arrested.
The victim was conveyed to the Princess Margaret Hospital where amongst other injuries it was found that he had a two centimetre stab wound over the lower chest wall which had affected both his stomach and diaphragm. He was admitted to the surgical ward and an operation performed. He subsequently remained in the intensive care unit until 28 May and was finally discharged from hospital on 30 May.
It appears that he has made a full recovery with no residual disabilities.
When the defendant was interviewed by the police after his arrest he said to them, “Ah Sir, I have no money to spend recently and thus I robbed the old man of his mobile phone.” He further elaborated on this and said that he had been unemployed for some months so that day he decided to make some quick money.
He left his home that morning taking two masks and a seven inch long knife with him. He went to the Cheung Hang Estate Shopping Centre where he saw the victim enter the public toilet. He followed him in intending to rob him. Because the victim struggled with him, he stabbed him twice.
Miss Amanda Lee on behalf of the defendant has told me something of his background. He comes from a working class family and was educated until Form 4 level. That matters deteriorated when he became involved in the use of dangerous drugs. He had come to the attention of the police as early as October of 2010 when he was given a superintendent’s discretion warning.
On the 18 July of this year he was sentenced to a drug addiction treatment centre for an offence of theft. I am told that that offence was committed whilst he was on bail for these matters. He has expressed through Miss Lee his remorse for his conduct and reiterates his apologies to the victim.
For my assistance Miss Lee has referred me to R v Mo Kwong Sang, which is a reported judgment of the Court of Appeal [1981] HKLR at page 610. In that judgment the Court of Appeal has provided guidance for those sentencing for the offence of robbery.
As I have indicated to Miss Lee there are significant aggravating factors in the commission of the offence by this defendant. Whilst I accept her submission that there was no sophisticated planning, it is quite clear that his actions were premeditated.
When he left home that morning he took with him masks and a knife. It was clearly his intention to commit robbery. A further aggravating factor in the circumstances of this case is that the defendant’s victim suffered a potentially very serious knife wound to the abdomen. It is fortunate that he did not suffer more serious injuries than he did.
As I have indicated to counsel I must sentence on the basis that both offences have been committed. The use of the knife by this defendant in the way that he did is a serious aggravating factor in the robbery charge.
I believe the proper approach is to enhance the starting point for sentence of the robbery charge by reason of the use of the knife. That said, any sentence I will impose for the section 17 wounding offence will be ordered to wholly concurrent to the aggravated sentence I impose for the robbery count.
The offences being as they are it is not proper to consider any alternative but to impose terms of imprisonment. Both offences are accepted offences for the purposes of section 109(a) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.
It has long been established that an offence of robbery would in the normal course of events result in a custodial sentence. Given the aggravating factors that I have indicated and in particular the fact that the robbery was premeditated and that a knife was used in the way that it was, I believe that the appropriate starting point for sentence after trial for the offence of robbery is 8 years.
The defendant will receive a full one-third discount from that starting point to reflect his timeous plea of guilty. That results in a sentence of 64 months’ imprisonment, which is 5 years and 4 months.
For the wounding charge I believe given the injury sustained by the victim a starting point after trial of 4 years would be appropriate. That will be reduced by a full one-third to reflect his plea of guilty. That results in a sentence of 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment and I order that that sentence be served concurrent to the sentence on Count 1.
The resulting total sentence is then one of 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.