HKSAR v. Tang Shek Yan

DCCC677/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 677 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.1st defendant has pleaded guilty today to four charges. The first three charges are robbery, contrary to section 10(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210; and the 5th charge is a conspiracy to rob, contrary to the same sections as well as section 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200.

2.The robberies of Charges 1, 2 and 3 were street robberies committed between 23 May and 8 June this year.  The 1st and 2nd defendants in this case targeted lone women on their own to rob.  According to the Summary of Facts as well as the defendant’s 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. 

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

4.The 2nd defendant who was only 16 at the time, I have adjourned his sentence for a training centre report but I make it clear that I find both equally culpable in these robberies.  The 1st defendant was only 21 at the time of these offences, a young man but not a defendant of extreme youth. 

5.In view of the seriousness of these offences, I intend to impose terms of imprisonment.  I have taken into account there were no weapons used in any of these robberies, the victims did not suffer any serious injuries, and these were not well-planned robberies but opportunistic ones.  Both defendants made full admissions to the police and co-operated fully.  Their best mitigation is in fact their pleas of guilty.

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 prey as they walked alone.  If they were successful, they would split the proceeds of their offences equally.

7.I have been informed that the 1st defendant has two previous convictions for theft, and on the same day, 5 December 2008, he was sentenced to 3-year probation orders by a magistrate in Tsuen Wan Magistracy.  The probation orders were completed some five months before Charge 1 was committed.

8.I have been told in mitigation that the 1st defendant was born in Hong Kong and educated up to Form 3 standard, and according to his antecedents, unemployed at the time of the offences. 

9.I have received a letter from the 1st defendant expressing his remorse and extreme regret.  I can see from his letter that he has turned to the church for guidance and will turn over a new leaf.  I hope that his words are not empty words.  

10.Robbery is a serious offence and in fact the maximum sentence is one of life imprisonment.  There are guidelines for various scenarios where robbery is committed, and to assist me, I have considered three authorities relevant, the first being Mo Kwong Sang v The Queen [1981] HKLR 610; secondly, the authority of The Queen v Yau Kwok Tung [1987] HKLR 782; and lastly HKSAR v Ting Chiu [2003] 3 HKLRD 378. 

11.The Court of Appeal has said that the starting point for a robbery in the street where no knife or dangerous weapon is displayed should be 4 years’ imprisonment, and that cases with two or more robbers would be more serious than a case with a lone robber.

12.Defendant, please stand up.  I have considered mitigation put forward on your behalf.  I have also considered the facts of the case, the violence inflicted, the injuries suffered as well as the victims’ loss. 

13.After careful consideration, I will take for Charges 1, 2 and 3 a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment; and for Charge 5, a starting point of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. The 1st defendant has pleaded guilty and will be entitled to a discount of one-third for his plea.  The 1st defendant for Charge 1 is sentenced to 2 years and 8 months.  As for Charge 2 and 3, the same sentence. For Charge 5, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years and 4 months.

14.I have considered the totality principle and the number of offences committed here over a period of several weeks.  The spree embarked on by these defendants was serious, and totally concurrent sentences would be inappropriate and not reflect the fact that there were several serious crimes committed.  Accordingly, I will make 2 months of the sentences for Charges 2, 3 and 5 consecutive to Charge 1 and the balance concurrent. Therefore, I add 6 months to the sentence of Charge 1; a total sentence of 3 years and 2 months.  Do you understand?

DEFENDANT: Understood.