HKSAR v. Leung Chi Wai

DCCC677/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 677 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant before me today is the 2nd defendant in this case. He, two weeks prior, pleaded guilty to five charges. The first three charges were robbery, contrary to section 10(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210, where he was jointly charged with the 1st defendant; Charge 4 was one offence of knowingly misleading a police officer by giving false information; the 5th, a joint charge as well, conspiracy to rob.

2.The facts are as follows.

3.The robberies of Charges 1, 2, and 3 were street robberies committed between 23 May and 8 June this year.  The defendants targeted lone women on their own to rob.  According to the Summary of facts as well as the defendants’ own admissions, they would push or punch the victim and snatch her handbag.  One would pass the bag to the other and both would escape at the same time.

4.For Charge 4, the defendant was actually stopped some hours after the commission of the 3rd charge.  And when he was  -- it was a random stop-and-search, and the police officer found on the defendant a mobile phone.  And he told the police officer that he had found this phone in a park and intended to sell it for some money, when in fact this phone was a stolen property stolen during the course of the robbery of Charge 3. 

5.For Charge 5, police officers stopped both the defendants at about 6 am on 10 June.  Upon questioning, both admitted to the police officers that they were looking for victims to rob.  And at the same time they admitted they had committed the robberies of Charges 1 to 3. 

6.In video records of interviews, both defendants told the police that they had no money and decided to find money by robbing women who were easy preys when they walked alone.  If they were successful, they would share the proceeds of their offences equally.

7.Both defendants, I found, were equally culpable in their roles. 

8.The defendant is not -- although only being 16 at the time of the offence was not of clear record.  He was in fact on probation at the time of these offences for a burglary offence, and as a result of this arrest and his behaviour whilst on probation, that probation was discharged and he was re-sentenced to detention centre on 31 July this year.

9.Because the defendant was only 16 at the time of the offence, I adjourned to today to obtain a training centre report.  

10.Robbery is a serious offence and in fact the maximum sentence is one of life imprisonment.  There are factors that I consider relevant that being it was a street robbery where no knife or dangerous weapon was displayed, and in fact it is an aggravating factor that there was more than one robber. 

11.The 1st defendant I dealt with on the day of plea and took a starting point of 4 years for the robbery offences.  But because of this defendant’s age, the 2nd defendant, as I said, I obtained a training centre report.  I do not intend to repeat the details of the report.

12.It goes through the defendant’s family background, his lack of effort or poor effort at school which led to him leaving school early.  He has had several jobs since he left school.  His parents are caring and supportive; they are here in court today.  However, it may simply be the case that they were unable to control him and give him guidance.  They have tried as well as having the assistance of the probation officer, but the defendant had by then run wild and was unable to comply with the conditions of the probation leading to him running away from home.  And this is why he came to commit these offences; he had run away from home and had no money. 

13.He associated with the 1st defendant who was a few years older than him and they both committed these offences together because of their lack of money.  He whilst in detention and serving a detention centre order has managed to behave and comply with rules and regulations. During the interview of the report he expressed his remorse, his immaturity and will turn over a new leaf leading a law-abiding life.

14.The defendant has written a letter to the court as part of his mitigation.  He expresses that now having lost his freedom he understands the serious consequences of his actions and he is sorry that his family are disappointed and they have to deal with this ordeal.  And he has vowed to be a new person after serving his sentence and be a useful person to the society and to his family.  And I hope these are not empty promises.  Your parents have heard your promise and remorse, so I hope you will not disappoint them again. 

15.You are very young and this you can put behind you which is why I am of the view that a training centre order would be entirely suitable for you and -- with this background I want to utilize a rehabilitative approach because you are still young.  But you must understand what a training centre is.  There is strict discipline in a training centre, you must comply with all their rules and regulations, and there is some training and I hope you can learn from the training and use any training you receive when you go home. 

16.Stand up, defendant.  Do you understand all I have said to you?

DEFENDANT: Understood.

17.Right.  Well, you face 5 charges, for each charge, I will sentence you to training centre; all to be served concurrently. All right.  You understand that?

DEFENDANT: Understood.