Case Document

100%

DCCC 412/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 412 OF 2014

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

	HKSAR
	v
	Randeep Singh

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

Before:

HH Judge Casewell

Date:

25 July 2014 at 11.31 am

Present:	Mr Martyn Richmond, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
	Mr Leslie James Parry, instructed by FONGS, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant

Offence:

Assault with intent to rob (意圖搶劫而襲擊他人)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one offence of assault with intent to rob. He has agreed the facts of the case and I convicted him accordingly.

2.The relevant facts show that some time between 11.30 pm and midnight on 21 March 2014 the victim was a 20-year-old female student who was returning home. She was on her own and she had entered the pass code into her building in Baker Street in Hung Hom. The defendant tapped her on the left shoulder from behind. The defendant had part of his face covered by a scarf. He placed a bamboo stick against the left side of the victim’s neck. He used his right hand to grab her handbag from her right shoulder. They then struggled over the handbag and the defendant threatened to hit the victim with a stick.

3.This attracted the attention of the police, who arrived, and the defendant dropped the stick and fled. The defendant was chased and was finally arrested and subdued, and he said to the officer, “Sorry Sir, I am hungry, three days no eating.”

4.So those are the facts which are agreed.

5.Defendant’s antecedents show that he is from India. He is 26 years old and has a clear record in Hong Kong.

6.In mitigation, it is also said that he arrived legally in Hong Kong in July 2013. He is now what is described as a torture claimant and resides in Hong Kong under a recognizance from the Director of Immigration. He is not allowed to work, so he has to rely on friends and also the local Sikh temple for assistance.

7.He attributes his commission of this offence to the disinhibiting effects of alcohol. He had received news that his cousin had died in India. He bought a bottle of cheap whisky and then consumed it all.

8.As far as sentence is concerned, the defendant has been convicted of an assault with intent to rob, which carries the same maximum sentence as robbery itself. There is no guideline for this particular offence, although there are guidelines for robbery offences.

9.In this case, the aggravating factors are the time at night the offence occurred, the use of a weapon to reinforce the threat in the form of a bamboo stick, and the use of force to try to obtain the handbag. Naturally, in such offences, the victim is put into distress and shock, although, fortunately for her, there were no injuries to her.

10.It is said the defendant has shown remorse and has pleaded guilty.

11.The sentencing for the offence of robbery is an obvious place to look for a starting point or a guideline sentence for this particular offence. The case of Mo Kwong Sang, which deals with armed robberies, appears to be confined to the use of knives and other dangerous weapons. I do not consider it apposite, considering the use of the bamboo stick in this case. In cases of unarmed robbery, the most serious forms of such robberies usually attract a starting point of sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment.

12.This offence has elements that are clearly akin to an unarmed robbery: the existence of a threat and the use of a degree of force, combined with the use of a stick to reinforce the threat. I do accept that there is no clear guideline sentence for this offence, but that the guideline sentences for unarmed robberies do provide some assistance.

13.Taking all these factors into account, I consider that a starting point for sentence of 3½ years’ imprisonment is appropriate; that is 42 months.

14.This is to be discounted by the usual one-third.

15.This leads to a sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment.