COURT: Defendant, you have pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, Laws of Hong Kong, the particulars being that you, on 24 November 2011, near the junction of Mei Tin Road and Heung Fan Liu Street, Shatin, robbed the victim of a mobile phone.
The Summary of Facts which you have admitted establish that in the very early hours - indeed, 1.45 am - of 24 November of 2011 the victim, who was a young Filipina, got off a bus and proceeded on her way home on foot, listening to her iPod. When she crossed the road, you accosted her from behind and hit her on the head with what appears to have been a glass beer bottle. You grabbed her around the waist and covered her mouth with your hand.
A struggle ensued between the two of you as the victim, not unnaturally, resisted, in the course of which you scratched her face, and robbed her of her mobile phone, which she carried in her right top pocket. You then made good your escape.
The police were eventually alerted and the victim taken to hospital, where mercifully, the injuries to her head were superficial. But it was not until six months later, in May of 2012, that you were arrested, and you admitted the offence under caution.
You are 27 now, although 25 at the time of the offence. You have two prior convictions in 2006 and 2007 for common assault and criminal damage respectively.
You were unemployed at the time of the offence, and committed this offence, I am told, as a result of arguments with your girlfriend, who pressed you to find a job in order to support the two young children that you have with her.
This was a cowardly attack on a defenceless young lady which took place in the very early hours of the morning. I have no doubt whatsoever that the victim must have been terrified as a result of this incident, which could quite easily have caused substantially more serious injuries to the victim.
The Court of Appeal have said, in the case of Secretary for Justice v Ma Ping Wah, Application for Review No 1 of 2000, that:
“Where it is established that a deliberate blow to the head with a weapon capable of causing injury to the brain has been struck by the robber or the culprit who was intent on robbery, the usual sentence after a contested trial should not be less than 8 years’ imprisonment.”
They did, of course, go on to say that this was not intended to be a straitjacket, as there may be other offences, depending on the circumstances, where a lesser penalty can be imposed.
In my view, in the circumstances of the present case, taking account of the fact that this incident took place in the very early hours of the morning on a vulnerable and defenceless victim, the proper starting point should be one of 8 years’ imprisonment. The fact that the injuries to the victim were not more serious is extremely fortuitous.
The only real mitigation in this case is your early plea of guilty, which is an indication of your remorse, and I will give you the full discount in sentence to reflect this.
I do adopt a starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment, and I will reduce this by one-third to reflect that plea, arriving at a sentence of 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.