CRIMINAL CASE NO. 435 OF 2011
COURT: The defendant, who is now aged 23, has pleaded guilty to three counts.
When he committed these offences, he was living with his parents in Tuen Mun in the immediate vicinity of the crime scene in Counts 2 and 3.
The first offence was committed on 12 June 2011 at 25 past 9 at night on a lady - I will call her “the first victim” - who had gone to the lift at her address in Tuen Mun. She was alone. When she got into the lift, the defendant followed her and pressed the button for a level above the floor pressed by the first victim. The first victim left the lift on her own, but as she walked towards her flat, she heard the lift door close and then open again, accompanied by the sound of someone running out.
The defendant came up behind her. He grabbed her arms, and she crouched down and screamed out loud, and this had the desired effect of scaring the defendant away, and he then ran off towards the staircase.
Two days later, on 14 June 2011, another lady, who I will refer to as “the second victim”, who also lived in Tuen Mun, returned to her block of flats during the afternoon. She was let in by the security guard, but the defendant walked in at the same time. They went to different lifts serving different floors. However, when the second victim’s lift arrived, the defendant got inside with her. He then pressed the button for a floor which was two floors below the second victim’s floor.
Although the defendant got out on the floor he had pressed, he was still able to reach the second victim’s floor in time to grab her neck as she made her way to the door of her flat. She screamed, but the defendant told her not to do so, as he said he had a cutter with him. He told her to follow him to the back staircase.
The second victim continued to scream, but she was pulled by the defendant to the back staircase and taken down several floors before being ordered to sit down. It was at that stage that the defendant produced a cutter from his pocket. He proceeded to slide out the blade, and placed it against the second victim’s neck. He then ordered her to take out her mobile telephone and wallet. When she produced her mobile phone, he snatched it away from her, and that is the robbery in Count 2.
The second victim showed the defendant that she had no money in her wallet so that this was not taken. She then pleaded to be given back her mobile telephone, and on hearing this, the defendant said that she should help him and play with him. He then pulled down his trousers and underpants, and when she screamed, he put the cutter next to her face and told her not to scream or he would cut her face.
The defendant then pulled her down several more floors on the staircase, where he asked her if she wanted her mobile phone back. She was crying, of course, at this stage, and nodded that she did. Once again, the defendant lowered his trousers and underpants and attempted to put his penis into her mouth. The second victim resisted, but the defendant put the cutter by her neck once more, and he told her to put out her tongue. He then masturbated onto her mouth, leaving semen inside her mouth and over her face and chest. This is the indecent assault in Count 3.
The defendant then told the second victim that he would leave her mobile phone beside the water pipes, and told her to go upstairs a few floors, but when eventually she returned downstairs, the defendant had gone, taking her mobile with him.
The second victim was treated in hospital for an abrasion on her neck, and was later given a Hepatitis B injection.
Four days later, on 18 June 2011, a highly observant police officer, PC7792, Yau Sin-chi, attached to the Police Tactical Unit, New Territories North, spotted the defendant as someone who had a similar appearance to the robber he had watched at a briefing session a few hours earlier when he was shown a CCTV film of a robber fleeing the scene of the second offence.
PC Yau arrested the defendant on suspicion of robbery and indecent assault, and immediately the defendant replied that he had committed the crime on impulse, and he went on to say that he had only planned to rob her phone. “I just told her to suck me on impulse.” And he went on to admit the 1st count of attempted robbery by saying he wanted to rob the girl of her phone, but “She shouted out, so I did not succeed.”
The defendant was later identified by the second victim at an identification parade, and the defendant’s DNA matched samples of semen left on the second victim.
As to the later investigation, the defendant was formally interviewed, and in regard to the 1st count, he said he had seen his intended victim outside a shopping centre and he had followed her home. He said that although he had been carrying a cutter on that occasion, intending to threaten with it, in the event he had not produced it as he was scared by her shouting out.
In regard to the 2nd count of robbery, the defendant admitted following the second victim from the light rail station before carrying out the robbery with the cutter to reinforce his threats, and once again, he maintained that the demand that she should perform oral sex on him was done on impulse. He was well aware that she was unwilling, but nevertheless he had ejaculated into her mouth.
He said that he had sold the mobile phone for $3,500, rather than leave it behind for the second victim, and he had gone on to spend all the money on a room for the night and in Macau the following day whilst gambling.
There is very little to be said in mitigation for offences as serious as these, albeit counsel has advanced as much as possibly could be said on this defendant’s behalf. It is, of course, the fact that the defendant had not previously offended in his life and has pleaded guilty to all of these counts.
The effects of the robbery and indecent assault on the second victim have been profound, as emerges from the victim impact statement. Her life has been turned completely upside down, with mood swings, the need for a change of address and all that that involves, and she is visiting a clinical psychologist.
The impact statement I have read shows the extreme consequences upon innocent victims such as this from crimes of this nature, which is why they call for severe punishment; not just to punish the offender for what he has done, but to deter others from similar conduct.
On the 1st count, I will take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, as the assault with intent to rob on the first victim resulted in no actual theft, and no weapon was produced. On the 2nd count, I will take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment, and on the 3rd count, there will also be a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment.
The defendant will receive the full benefit of his pleas of guilty by a discount on each sentence of a third, but in deciding overall totality, I have in mind what is set out in the penultimate paragraph of the psychiatric report, where Dr Lui has described the defendant as “Having a dissocial personality, being self-centred, irresponsible, of low tolerance to frustrations, and concerned more with his own gratification than the feelings of others. To that extent, he may be considered a potential danger to the public, although he is not a sexual deviant as such”. There is no psychiatric recommendation made.
On the 1st count, therefore, the sentence, taking into account your plea, is one of 2 years’ imprisonment; on the 2nd count, there will be a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment; and on the 3rd count, again, a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment.
I am going to order that 18 months of the sentence for robbery in the 2nd count shall run consecutively to the sentence on Count 3 for indecent assault, which makes 5½ years’ imprisonment in all; and so far as the 1st count is concerned, I will order that 1 year of the sentence will run consecutively to the other sentences, making 6½ years’ imprisonment in all.