HKSAR v. Chu Chung Man
|
DCCC 5/2014 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 5 OF 2014 --------------------------
--------------------------
------------------------------------ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ------------------------------------ 1.The defendant (male) (aged 17 years) came before me two weeks ago and pleaded guilty to a single charge of attempted robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. 2.The particulars of offence aver that the defendant on 19 October 2013 at Vango Convenience Store, Shop No A08, Ground Floor, Tai Wo Hau Commercial Centre 1, Tai Wo Hau Estate, Kwai Chung, New Territories, in Hong Kong, attempted to rob Chung Pui Yee and Chan Siu Yi. Facts 3.The two victims named in the charge were indeed the shopkeepers of the convenience store who were working at around 3.10 am on 19 October 2013 when the defendant who was wearing a surgical mask and a hooded windbreaker entered into the store and suddenly brandished a fruit knife around 20 cm in length with blade around 10 cm and asked them to take out the money from the cashier. 4.Both victims however showed no response to the defendant’s demand. Around five seconds later, the defendant fled the scene empty-handed. The store suffered no loss and the police was called. 5.The police retrieved the CCTV’s images of the store and of the housing estate in the vicinity. One of the police officers viewed the CCTVs and saw a man running from Tai Wo Hau Estate towards Kwai Chung Estate at around 3.10 am and then took the elevator to the 33rd Floor of Chui Kwai House in Kwai Chung Estate. 6.The police later laid ambush at Chui Kwai House and at around 6 pm of the same day, they spotted the defendant entering the main entrance of the building and followed him into the elevator to the 33rd Floor where he was finally intercepted and investigated. 7.Eventually, the defendant was arrested for the present offence. Under caution, he admitted that he had attempted to commit robbery at the said convenience store because he owed someone HK$2,000 and he took a knife from his home to rob at the store. 8.The knife was later found from the kitchen of the defendant’s flat and was seized as an exhibit. Defendant’s criminal record and background 9.The defendant is aged 17 years of age. In the past he had altogether 8 criminal records in 5 court appearances which were all theft-related. All the cases were dealt with in the Tsuen Wan Magistracy where he was given numerous opportunities of probation supervision for 18 months which was subsequently extended to 24 months as a result of breach of probation. 10.Defendant was born in Hong Kong and received education up to Form 3 level. After quitting school, he had been working, firstly, as a waiter, and later as a kitchen worker, a delivery worker and a shop attendant. His employment pattern was unstable. 11.Defendant’s parents was divorced when he was at the age of 8. The father, being a cross-border driver by occupation, was unable to look after the defendant and instead, he was looked after by the grandparents who are actually two-way permit holders from the mainland China. Lacking sufficient and adequate parental guidance and supervision, the defendant turned wayward and lost interest in studies. 12.In mitigation, Mr Ng, the solicitor appearing for the defendant, had submitted to the court that this is not the worst type of robbery case. He said the defendant is still young and he is remorseful and he pleaded guilty in the first opportunity and therefore saving the court’s time. He asked for a detention centre report and a training centre report or even a probation officer’s report. 13.To support his submission, Mr. Ng has cited the case HKSAR v Wong Tsz Hin CACC 38/2012 where the Court of Appeal had set aside the imprisonment term imposed by the District Judge in relation to a robbery case committed by a youngster aged 16 with a clear record and substituted instead with a training centre order. 14.Mr Ng also submitted to the court letters written by the defendant’s father as well as the defendant himself. The father had expressed regret that he had not rendered adequate supervision over the son and he praised that his son was basically good in nature and asked the court to be as lenient as possible. 15.As for the defendant himself, during the present remand in custody, he said that he had learned the lesson and he treasured the love of his family members and he also promised the court that he would reform and begged for leniency. Sentencing considerations 16.Robbery of course is a very serious offence. However, I agree with the submission by the defence that this is not the worst type of the robbery case that the court had come across. Apparently, the defendant acted alone at the time of the offence. It was never a carefully planned or executed robbery. The shop had suffered no loss and it is apparent that both shopkeepers were not frightened at all during the course of the robbery. 17.It is true that the defendant did not have a clear record and in the past he had also been given numerous chances to reform by probation orders. 18.According to the Correctional Services’ reports, I also understand that the defendant had once been sent to the Juvenile Home for residential training at the time when he was receiving probation. Sadly, he still did not reform himself and according to the report, after his last probation order had expired, he went back to mingle with those dubious peers and his fun-seeking behaviours. 19.In Wong Tsz Hin, the Court of Appeal has cited the case R v Cheung Wing Wai and others [1993] 2 HKCLR 139 where Bokhary JA (as he then was) had said:-
20.Having considered this case authority, the facts of this case and the mitigation put forward by the defence as well as the recommendation suggested by the correctional service that the defendant is suitable for training centre order, I am satisfied that for the interest of the defendant as well as the interest of the community, the best sentencing option in this case is to send the defendant to the training centre and that is so ordered.
|
Cases cited in this judgment