HKSAR v. Fu Kai Fung and Another

DCCC 1015/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1015 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendants pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery.

2.The facts admitted by the defendants state that at about 11.25 on the evening of 2 September 2012, the two victims of the robbery, a Mr Lam who is 18 years of age and a Miss Wong who is 19 years of age, were sitting on a bench near a bus terminal at Hoi Yuen Road in Kwun Tong, Kowloon.  They observed the defendants sitting on a fence nearby looking at them occasionally.

3.10 minutes later, the man, PW1, saw that the defendants were following them whilst they were walking towards the bus terminal.  When they arrived at a junction nearby, they heard somebody shout from behind and they turned round and saw the defendants running towards them.

4.The defendants then punched and kicked PW1 for about 30 seconds.  Miss Wong, PW2, was pushed to the ground.  The 2nd defendant then grabbed the handbag from PW1 who was carrying it on behalf of PW2, and the defendants then fled.    

5.Two officers were conducting an operation in the vicinity of the offence location.  At about 0040 hours just after midnight on 3 September, PW3, one of the officers, spotted the defendant at Wai Yip Street at the junction of Tsun Yip Street, Kwun Tong, Kowloon.  They intercepted the defendants and after search found that they were in possession of some of the property belonging to PW2.  They were arrested and cautioned and admitted having committed the offence.

6.Apparently, the offence was committed because of lack of money.  They repeated those admissions in video-recorded interviews, and certain items of property belonging to PW2 were recovered.

7.The two victims were sent to the United Christian Hospital for medical treatment.  The male, PW1, was found to have suffered abrasion on his upper lip, redness and tenderness on the post-auricular region.  The female victim was found to have suffered abrasion on her left knee and left elbow, bruising on the right thigh, tenderness on the left knee, left elbow and right thigh.

8.The 1st defendant in 2012 was given a superintendent’s discretion for an offence of theft, and the 2nd defendant appeared before the court in March of 2011 in respect of two offences: assault occasioning actual bodily harm and possession of an offensive weapon.  He was given a 12-month probation sentence in respect of the first offence and 7 days’ imprisonment in respect of the second offence.

9.When the defendants appeared before the court and entered guilty pleas to these offences, I adjourned the case so that I could have the advantage of reports from the training centre correctional institution at Pik Uk.  I have had the advantage of reading those reports. 

10.As regards the 1st defendant, he was 16 years and 8 months at the time of the interview.  It says that he lived with his family members at his home address and his parents divorced in 1999 after his father moved out of the family home.  It says that the defendant was born the only child in a working‑class family.  He managed to behave himself in his childhood although his academic performance was unsound towards his upper primary years.  It states that no serious behaviour was observed from him at that time. 

11.However, when he reached Form 3, he started to befriend some people whom the officer describes as being baneful.  He joined a triad society in October 2010.  His delinquent behaviour became apparent and he often returned home late.  He quitted school after completing Form 3.  He was arrested in May 2011 for theft.  I am told that he tried ketamine in August 2011 but, fortunately, he did not become addicted.  He started working in a warehouse as an assistant in January 2012 and was able to work steadily in the following month.  However, he quit the job in mid-2012 due to low salary.  The report states that in running out of money, he committed the present robbery offence.  It describes the defendant as having a weak law‑abiding concept.  It says that a period of disciplinary training coupled with statutory supervision could be helpful.

12.As regards the 2nd defendant, the report describes the defendant as having been blessed with a decent family, and indeed his family members have attended court today.  The report says that although he received concern and care from his parents, it was doubtful that he was subjected to sufficient and timely supervision when he slid towards delinquency in his early teens, and he associated with delinquents of a similar age and identified himself with this delinquent subculture.  It says that his period of 7 days’ imprisonment and the period on probation seem to have little deterrent effect on him.  He joined a triad society and committed further offences.

13.The officer from the Correctional Services Department says that in order to help him develop more insight into his problems and strengthen his law-abiding mindset, a period of disciplinary training with statutory supervision would be beneficial.

14.I have also been given a letter from D2’s parents.  They are obviously very anxious and concerned about the predicament in which D2 finds himself.  They describe him as being helpful at home and doing household chores.  Sadly, he is easily motivated by others. 

15.D2 also wrote a letter himself, saying that he is remorseful and has learnt a bitter lesson from his involvement in this matter.  He regrets his impulsiveness and the distress which he has brought to his parents.

16.The offence which the two defendants have committed is serious.  This was an attack late at night on a young couple.  It must have been a very frightening experience for them. 

17.I am invited by both counsel to consider imposing a period of imprisonment rather than sending the two defendants for detention in a training centre.  In my view, the training centre is exactly what these two defendants need.  They lack discipline and insight.  They will be given training which will assist them when they are eventually released.

18.As counsel has rightly said that this is an offence which should normally attract a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment.  In my view, there are aggravating features in this case given that one of the victims was a young woman and the fact that both of them ended up having to be treated in hospital.  So had I considered that imprisonment would have been a suitable option, I would have adopted a starting point higher than years’ imprisonment.  Given that, some might consider that a training centre sentence a more lenient option.

19.However, I am satisfied that it would be more useful to the defendants and more useful to society if they were to undergo a period of training.  I therefore order that both defendants be detained in a training centre.