CRIMINAL CASE NO. 436 OF 2011
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to the attempted robbery in the 1st count of this indictment, and not guilty to robbery, but guilty to the alternative of theft, in the 2nd count.
The prosecution did not accept the reduced plea, but in the event, the jury convicted the defendant, after a short trial, on the 2nd count of theft.
Put shortly, the two offences were within two days of each other, and both were committed in the Chai Wan area on lone females late at night.
The first offence occurred at about 12.30 in the morning of 14 July 2011 as the 20-year-old victim was walking home. Her handbag was suddenly grabbed from behind. The victim bravely held on, and in the course of the struggle, during which the defendant punched the victim in the eye, both she and the defendant fell down the length of a staircase. The victim continued to shout for help, and it seems that it was this which scared the defendant away; hence attempted robbery rather than the full offence.
Fortunately, the victim’s injuries were confined to bruises, redness around the eye, and tenderness.
The second offence involved a 14-year-old schoolgirl, who was duped by the defendant into leaving the bus stop where she was waiting for a bus shortly after midnight on 16 July 2011, and she was led to believe that the defendant needed help because a group of youths were looking for him, and that if she pretended to be his girlfriend, they would leave him alone. The story was entirely false. It was just a trick to get the girl into the shopping centre at a time when the shopping area was about to close and was very quiet.
He then took her to a back staircase, and after a security guard had asked them to move on, he took the victim to another quiet area, and it was here that he took her wallet and mobile phone. The wallet contained, amongst other things, the victim’s identity card, her student card, and $200.
The defendant then left on the pretext that he would be back soon, but the victim never saw him again until an identification parade took place later, and she never saw any of her property again either.
The defendant was arrested a day later at 2.10 am on 17 June. He was interviewed, and he admitted both offences.
It goes without saying that these were cowardly offences and would have been greatly upsetting for both victims. It seems that the defendant has learnt nothing from the brief spell of training at a detention centre which he had undergone between about 11 February and 3 May 2011, because these offences were committed within six weeks of his release. Prior to that there had been several manifestations of behavioural problems, including a previous conviction for robbery, blackmail and assault, and he had twice breached probation orders. It seems that the defendant was also, during that time, an abuser of ketamine and cocaine.
In any event, I called for a training centre suitability report on the last occasion, and this confirms that the defendant, aged 19, is a suitable candidate for training.
I am satisfied that he fits all the criteria for a training centre order in that it is in the interest of the community, having regard to the defendant’s character and previous conduct, and to the circumstances of these offences, that it is expedient for his reformation and for the prevention of crime that he should undergo a period of training in a training centre.
Accordingly, I shall make an order on each of these counts that the defendant shall undergo, concurrently on each count, a period of detention at a training centre.
It is unfortunate that I cannot make, as I would like to have made, a compensation order.