HKSAR v. Choi Chuen Sun

DCCC575/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 575 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

The charges

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery and a charge of theft, under section 10 and section 9 respectively of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

The facts

2.The facts of the case can be summarized as follows.

Charge 1

3.PW1, an 84-year-old lady, was residing in a unit at Ever Rich Mansion situated at No.84 Pei Ho Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon.

4.At around 10.30 on 20 May 2012, PW1 took the lift of the building with the defendant.  She was holding a wallet with $1,300 and some personal belongings.  When the lift door opened on an unknown floor, the defendant suddenly snatched PW1’s wallet.  PW1 resisted.  The defendant pushed her against the wall of the lift and fled.  Fortunately, PW1 did not sustain any injuries.

5.The CCTV footage of the lift captured the incident and the face of the defendant. 

Charge 2

6.At around 8.35 am on 22 May 2012, PW2, a 78-year-old lady, walked past No.8 Pei Ho Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon.  She was holding her wallet with cash and personal belongings contained therein at that time.  The defendant suddenly snatched her wallet from behind and then fled.  In the course of fleeing, the defendant dropped his watch at the rear lane accidentally. 

7.On the same day, a team of police officers laid ambush in the vicinity of Pei Ho Street, Tung Chau Street and Nam Cheong Street of Sham Shui Po. 

8.At around 12.57 pm, they saw the defendant wandering at the rear lane of No.200C Yu Chau Street as if he was looking for something.  They then intercepted the defendant.  He was subsequently arrested. 

9.Under caution, the defendant admitted offences (1) and (2).  He also admitted that he had spent the stolen money of PW1 and part of the money belonging to PW2 on drugs and had discarded the other properties.  As his watch was dropped when he snatched from PW2, he therefore returned to the scene to look for it but was arrested by the police. 

The defendant’s background and mitigation

10.The defendant, aged 47, is a drug addict.  He was unemployed and a CSSA recipient.  The defendant has 22 previous criminal records with some 36 offences.  The majority of the offences were dishonesty-related, including robbery and theft.  The defendant had his first conviction at the age of 14.  He was released from prison for his last conviction in January 2012.  In about five months’ time, he committed the present offences of robbery and theft at the area he was living in.

11.After his very first conviction at the age of 14, in the subsequent 33 years he has been in and out of prison on numerous occasions on terms ranging from 2 months to 54 months.  He had been admitted to the DATC twice for treatment.  This court sees no remorse from the defendant except his guilty plea.  He can be classified as a recidivist.  

12.His claim to turn over a new leaf remains questionable.  Despite many opportunities given to him to start anew, he refused to be rehabilitated and to return to the right track.  In five months’ time of his release from prison for his previous theft conviction, the defendant broke the law again and had placed the two elderly ladies in a horrifying predicament in order to feed his drug addiction.

Circumstances of the case

(1) Charge 1

13.This is a lift robbery which took place in the morning inside a residential building.  When the elderly victim resisted, the defendant pushed her against the wall of the lift.  Fortunately, she did not suffer any injury.  However, this is the defendant’s fourth conviction of robbery.

14.The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ma Man Dick [2004] 1 HKLRD 1046, CACC109/2003, held that the starting point for lift robbery which did not involve the use or display of a weapon was 4 years’ imprisonment. 

(2) Charge 2

15.The offence was not an ordinary theft but took the form of snatching on an elderly lady who had sustained little financial loss.  Nevertheless, this is also the defendant’s fourth conviction of snatching.

16.The defendant is definitely a repeated offender.  His previous convictions were appalling.  Custodial sentence is inevitable but no longer an efficient deterrent on recidivists like the defendant.  An upward adjustment of sentences is therefore justified in this case. 

Starting point

17.Having considered all the circumstances of the case, and those of the defendant, mitigation advanced by his lawyer and guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal, this court will adopt a starting point of 51 months for Charge 1 and 33 months for Charge 2.  See R v Saldana Alca Jose CACC655/1996.

18.Upon his guilty plea, the defendant is entitled to a one-third discount on sentences so as to reduce the terms of sentence to one of 34 months’ and 22 months’ imprisonment respectively.

19.Apart from the usual one-third discount given for the defendant’s plea, there were no other factors which would justify any further reduction in sentence. 

Concurrent or consecutive sentences?

20.Charges 1 and 2 were distinct and separate offences committed on different dates.  As a matter of sentencing principle, consecutive sentences are called for.  However, this court has to consider the totality principle to appropriately reflect the overall culpability of the defendant and the criminality of the offences.

Sentences

21.This court orders that the sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment on Charge 2 should run consecutively to the sentences of 34 months’ imprisonment on Charge 1.  The remainder is to run concurrently.  The defendant has to serve 40 months’ imprisonment in totality.