HKSAR v. Chui Kwai Ping

Case No.HCCC 261/2012
Court
High Court CFI
Date26 Sep 2012
Judge
Case Document
100%

HCCC261/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 261 OF 2012

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

  HKSAR  
  v  
  Chui Kwai-ping  

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

Before: The Honourable Mrs Justice V Bokhary
Date: 26 September 2012 at 9.56 am
Present: Mr Edward Brook, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
  Mr Hung Kin-man, Samson, instructed by the Legal Aid Department, for the Accused
Offence: (1), (2) and (3) Robbery (搶劫罪)

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The accused, you have pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to three charges of robbery and have been committed to this court for sentence.

I have taken into account everything urged on your behalf.

The robbery under Charge 1 was committed against a woman in the vulnerable position of someone working in a convenience store in the small hours of the morning. The robbery under Charge 2 was committed against a woman and a teenaged girl working at such a place and at such a time. It was committed by you and another man, the other one holding a knife of about 1 inch in width and about 1 foot in length. The robbery under Charge 3 was also committed at a convenience store in the small hours of the morning. This time the victim was a male aged 19. You used a knife and pointed at the victim.

In my view, the appropriate starting point is 5 years’ imprisonment under Charge 1, 7 years’ imprisonment under Charge 2 and 6 years’ imprisonment under Charge 3.

You are aged 34 and able bodied, although I have been told that you are a drug addict. The only real mitigation available to you is provided by your guilty pleas, for which I shall give you the full one-third discount, thereby reducing those sentences to one of 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment under Charge 1, 4 years and 8 months under Charge 2, and 4 years under Charge 3.

These were separate offences calling for separate punishment, but to make all of them wholly consecutive would result in excessive punishment. Applying the totality principle to avoid that, I order that 2 years and 8 months on the sentence under Charge 2 run consecutively to the 3 years and 4 months under Charge 1, and the sentence under Charge 3 wholly concurrent to the sentences under Charge 1 and 2, to arrive at a total sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment, which is what I consider the appropriate total punishment in this case.

You are therefore sentenced to 3 years and 4 months under Charge 1, 4 years and 8 months under Charge 2 and 4 years under Charge 3, and they will run partly concurrently and partly consecutively as I have already indicated.

You will therefore go to prison for a total of 6 years.