HKSAR v. Lau Chak Lam, Andy

DCCC 1201/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1201 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charge

1.The defendant is convicted after trial of a charge of robbery of a pair of earrings studded with diamonds at a jewelry shop in Mong Kok.    

Case as found

2.At 4:03 p.m. on 9 August 2012, the defendant posed as a customer went to Gold-To-Cash situated at Yim Po Fong Street, Mong Kok.  It was a shop trading in second-hand gold and jewels.  PW1 was the only employee present.  It was 1 of the 3 shops trading under Gold-To-Cash owned by PW4 and managed by PW2, who was PW4’s daughter. 

3.Upon his request, PW1 was showing him a pair of earrings studded with diamonds when he suddenly threw pepper at PW1’s eyes.  He snatched the pair of earrings, valued at $39,900, from PW1’s hand and fled.  CCTV at the shop recorded the course of the defendant’s stay.    PW2 and PW4 were made known of the robbery soon. 

4.At 4:30 p.m., he entered another Gold-To-Cash, situated at Nullah Road, Mong Kok, with a female.  He wanted to sell the pair of earrings to PW2.  He asked her for a quote.  PW2 recognised the pair of earrings as the company’s stock.  She used her mobile phone to take a photo of the female.  The female was outraged and picked up the pair of earrings.  The couple left together.  The CCTV at the shop recorded the course of the couple’s stay.   

5.On 28 August 2012, after arrest and caution by PW3 for the robbery, the defendant remained silent.  A search of his flat was conducted with no findings.  The pair of earrings was not recovered.  In his VRI, he denied his presence at PW1’s shop but said that he had gone to PW2’s shop to assist the female to sell a pair of earrings.

6.On 5 September 2012, PW1 picked out the defendant as the robber in an identification parade. 

Personal background and mitigation

7.The defendant is aged 37.  He was educated up to F. 5 level.  He was employed in various casual and unskilled tasks before arrest.  Since 2003 up to the date of the present offence, his criminal records show 8 dishonesty convictions but none for robbery.  Though he had committed a further theft after the present case, this is not a matter relevant to his sentence today.

8.His parents are in their sixties and suffer various chronic illnesses.  He took care of them whenever he was not in jail.  He has begotten a 3-year-old son with his cohabitant, who has not yet divorced her husband.  The child is presently kept in a foster home. 

9.Defence counsel submits that the proprietress had told the police that the pair of earrings was acquired at about $30,000.  The actual loss would be this sum plus the other costs of the business but less than the listed price of $39,900. 

Sentencing robberies

10.In Mo Kwong-sang v R [1981] HKLR 610, the Court of Appeal has given sentencing guidelines for armed robberies.  A simple robbery with arms or dangerous weapons displayed warrants 5 years’ imprisonment.  Non-exhaustive aggravating factors include the invasion of business premises and physical violence to the victim.  The guidelines have been widely adopted for unarmed robberies with abatement. 

11.In HKSAR v Chan Sai-chiu CACC 213/2000, the defendant threw pepper at the eyes of a 54-year-old limping woman at the staircase of the building where she lived.  He snatched her handbag which contained cash of over $15,300 which she had only moments ago withdrawn from the bank.  The Court of Appeal regarded a starting point of 4 years as proper but, given the defendant’s recidivism for robbery, approved of 5 years instead. 

12.Where the value involved in the robbery was high, the sentence should be increased (HKSAR v Lai Kam-tong [2005] 1 HKC 232, 242).

Sentencing this defendant

13.The defendant had entered the business premises of Shop A to throw pepper at PW1’s eyes and made off with a pair of earrings, causing loss to the proprietress in the sum of over $30,000.    He has kept on committing dishonesty offences since 2003.  Those sentences have clearly failed in their deterrence.  These are all aggravating factors.  There was some basic, but not serious, planning and gear for the robbery.  I take a starting point of 4 ½ years.  As he has no mitigating factors, this is the sentence.