HKSAR V Chauhan Nitin Kumar

DCCC 272/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 272 OF 2013

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

____________

1.The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of robbery of one mobile phone, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

2.At about 12.35 p.m. on the 4 January this year Miss Tse was walking alone outside the exit of the Nam Cheong MTR station in Sham Shui Po.  As she walked Miss Tse was browsing the internet on her “Samsung Galaxy Note II” mobile phone. Suddenly the defendant and another male dashed towards her.  The defendant stood in front of Miss Tse and the other male behind her.  The defendant pushed Miss Tse and snatched her mobile phone. 

3.The defendant and the other male then fled.  The actions of the defendant had been witnessed by a pedestrian Mr Wong, who chased after and intercepted the defendant, while the other male made good his escape.  The mobile phone was recovered from the defendant.  The police were called and the defendant arrested.  Under caution the defendant said he committed the robbery because he had no job and no money.

4.In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Dosani together with the letter written by the defendant. 

5.No knife or weapon having been used the proper basis for sentence is that which is appropriate for an unarmed robbery.  The starting point for unarmed robbery is generally no more than 4 years imprisonment, see for example R v Yau Kwok Tung [1987] HKLR 782 as applied in HKSAR v Ting Chiu[2003] 3 HKLRD 378.  

6.Mr Dosani refers me to the case of HKSAR v Ku Kwok Wai & another [2012] 4 HKLRD 563 which has similarities to the present case.  There the defendants, who were 21 and 22 and of clear records, followed a 17 year old female student in the early hours of the morning.  When she entered a building and was waiting for a lift in the lift lobby one of the defendants forcefully snatched her iPhone. 

7.The force used was a push in the back by one of the defendants whilst the other defendant acted as a lookout.  The female suffered no injuries.  The Court of Appeal agreeing this was a step-up from a theft or snatching upheld a starting point of 3 years and 3 months imprisonment.

8.Mr Dosani submits the present case is less serious in that the offence was not in the early hours of the morning nor was the defendant and the other male seen to follow Miss Tse.  On the other hand in the present case two persons suddenly approached Miss Tse whereas in Ku Kwok Wai it was observed that from the perspective of the victim she would have only been aware of the presence of one robber. 

9.I am satisfied the present case is also a “step up from a theft or snatching” by reason of the fact the defendant, whilst the other male stood behind Miss Tse, pushed Miss Tse in the chest before snatching the mobile phone. 

10.Taking into account that this was a robbery during the day; the defendant acted together with another person; Miss Tse did not receive any injuries; the mobile phone was recovered; and that the defendant was 20 with a clear record at the time of the robbery, I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial is 3 years imprisonment. 

11.Giving the defendant full credit for his plea of guilty he is convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.