HKSAR v. Wong Kit Choi

DCCC1051/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1051 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges of robbery contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance Cap.210. Both robberies are unarmed robberies.

2.The first robbery was on 24 July this year, 3 o’clock in the afternoon when PW1, a female aged 24 was sitting in a restaurant waiting for her takeaway food.  She had placed her iPhone on the table in front of her.  The facts are that the defendant approached her and punched her in the head.  From her injuries it was clearly around her eye area.  The defendant took her phone and fled. 

3.The second robbery took place two days later.  At about 3.25 that afternoon a young female aged 21, PW2, was walking on the street holding a bowl of hot congee.  The defendant approached her and punched her in the head several times.  Her glasses fell to the ground and the hot congee spilled and burned her hand quite badly.  The defendant snatched her iPhone and fled the scene.  She suffered injuries to her face, her arm, her ear and obviously the burn marks.  I have seen photographs of both the victims’ injuries. 

4.The defendant was arrested later that afternoon when he was approached by police officers for a random stop-and-search.  Before they revealed their identity the defendant tried to run away but he was stopped and cautioned.  He then made a full admission of the robbery earlier that day as well as the one he had committed two days prior.  He explained to the police where he had sold the stolen property and PW2’s iPhone was subsequently recovered. 

5.The best mitigation today is the defendant’s plea of guilty.  He is 38 years old and has one previous conviction which is not similar but for which he served a long 17 year sentence.  He was released in 2006 when he not long after married and had a daughter who is now 3.  The defendant was employed but, however, having been unemployed since 2009 has been receiving CSSA.  He explains that he was in financial difficulty.  The CSSA was insufficient for his family which made him desperate and he committed these offences. 

6.The defendant is very sorry and remorseful and wishes to apologise to the victims.  Much has been said in particular in the letter written to the court by his wife of his close relationship to his 3 year old daughter.  PW1 and 2 are young women.  They are somebody’s daughter and the defendant, as a father, should imagine how these victims’ parents felt when their young daughters were robbed in such a violent manner. 

7.The facts of the case are serious.  The defendant acted very aggressively aiming for these victims’ face and head. Luckily neither victim suffered more serious injuries.  I have been referred to and looked at the authority of HKSAR v Ting Chiu [2003] 3 HKLRD 378.  In that authority other authorities are discussed including appropriate sentences.  The Court of Appeal was of the opinion that a 4 year starting point is appropriate and is at the top end of the tariff for robberies where weapons are not displayed. 

8.I have considered the background of the defendant, mitigation put forward, the three letters submitted to the court, the facts of the case including the violence used and the injuries suffered and, lastly, the defendant’s plea. 

9.Please stand up, defendant.  I do find as appropriate a starting point of 4 years for each charge.  You are entitled to a discount of 16 months for your plea of guilty.  That would leave for each charge a sentence of 2 years and 8 months.  I have considered the totality principle.  There are two offences in this case committed two days apart.  I will make Charge 2 partly consecutive to Charge 1 to reflect the 2nd charge. Six months of Charge 2 will be ordered to run consecutively to Charge 1 and the balance concurrent.  That would leave a total sentence of 3 years and 2 months.