COURT: Defendant, please stand. I am now going to sentence you and these are my reasons.
The defendant was committed for trial to the High Court on six counts, consisting of two counts of robbery, Counts 1 and 4, two counts of theft, Counts 3 and 5, one count of attempted robbery, Count 2 and one count of burglary, Count 6.
His case was set down for trial to commence on 22 September 2014 with 10 days reserved. At the pre-trial review hearing on 24 July 2014, he indicated that he would plead guilty to all counts. The case was adjourned to today for plea and sentence.
The circumstances of the offences follow a similar pattern. He would prey on vulnerable women, most of whom were involved in the sex industry, who he would rob or steal from. In some instances, he would terrorise or frighten them when committing his crime.
The six offences occurred over a period of about 6 weeks, from July to August 2013 and came to a stop when one of his victims had recognised him when he attended a room of another victim. She notified the police who apprehended him after he had attempted to flee.
The robbery of the first victim occurred on a date in July of 2013. She worked alone as a sex worker from a room. After the defendant had negotiated the provision of sexual services from her, he then turned on her by punching her repeatedly on the arm and threatened to kill her as he demanded money from her. She was very scared. He found her handbag inside a cabinet and took $1,600 cash from it. He then left.
The attempted robbery of the second victim occurred on 18 July 2013. She also worked alone as a sex worker from a room. After the victim had provided sexual services to him he produced a knife with a 20 centimetre silver blade, which he pointed at her waist and demanded money. The victim was very scared and told the defendant that her money was inside a refrigerator near the entrance of the room. As they were going to the refrigerator, the victim cried for help and the defendant immediately fled.
The theft from the third victim occurred on 19 July 2013. She also worked alone as a sex worker from a room. After the victim had provided sexual services to him, she noticed what she thought was a knife inside a paper bag belonging to the defendant. She became frightened. He claimed he had no cash to pay her for her services and offered to give her a made out cheque. An argument ensued, during which he snatched $500 belonging to her that was on a dressing table in the room. He then fled.
The robbery of the fourth victim occurred in mid-July 2013. The defendant admitted robbing an unknown sex worker when he was interviewed by the police upon his apprehension for Count 6. He admitted that after he had sexual services with her, he threatened to kill her if she did not give money to him. He said she looked terrified and gave him $200. He admitted that he was carrying a toy silver metal knife which he did not produce.
The theft from the fifth victim occurred on 8 August 2013. The victim operated a foot massage shop. He inquired about her services and as she was reading a document that he gave her for payment of the services, he stole her mobile phone and Octopus card and ran out of the shop. The phone was a Samsung Note, which cost $7,000 when bought some years prior. The Octopus card had a value of $150. The defendant admitted that he sold the phone for $1,000 and that he had spent all the money.
The burglary of the room of the sixth victim occurred in the early hours of the morning on 10 August 2013. The occupant of the room was also a sex worker operating from it. She had left there about 3.30 am and later, at 5.30 am, she had been informed that the room had been burgled. She found that the room had been ransacked and items of property belonging to her were strewn on the bed.
The items were her mobile phone, a gold chain, pearl chain and a gentleman’s Casio watch. The defendant admitted he intended to steal these items but abandoned them when he heard a knock on the door. He sought to escape and left through a window of the room and went on to a canopy outside. He said he found an ornamental dagger outside the window, which he picked up. The dagger was made of metal and was 7 inches long with a sharp point.
The knocks on the door came from the police who had been notified by the first victim who had recognised the defendant on the CCTV when he went to the sixth victim’s room. As he was trying to flee, the defendant fell to the ground, injuring his forehead, and attempted to escape by running against the traffic in a nearby road. The police in pursuit caught up with him. He was wielding the dagger and it was only after a sergeant from the Emergency Unit drew his revolver and warned him twice, that he dropped the dagger.
At this juncture, I want to make two comments. Whilst the chase and the apprehension of the defendant by the police is part of the factual circumstances of Count 6, it warranted the laying of separate offences. It was a dangerous situation. It could have escalated into something more serious. The police officers involved, in particular the sergeant from the Emergency Unit, should be commended for their actions and bravery.
Mr Alex Ng, on behalf of the defendant, addressed me primarily on the offences and the relevant facts and circumstances. There was very little, if anything, he could say on behalf of the defendant as to his background. The most he could say is that he was young man who had pleaded guilty to all counts on the indictment with one of the offences being laid as a result of his own admission.
The defendant is 21 years of age with a poor background and a substantial criminal record. He admits in the past he was a drug addict with Triad associations. He has a criminal record commencing in 2007 for theft, burglary, violence and possession of drugs. In 2009, he was ordered to be detained in a training centre. He was released under supervision but recalled several times for breach of condition of his release. He is now facing a substantial term of imprisonment.
Mr Ng urges me to bear in mind that the defendant is a young offender and that the offences took place over a 6 week period of which three involved robbery of a woman with no serious harm being inflicted on any of them.
Mr Ng submits that the first robbery involved no weapon, but the point is it did involve the defendant punching the victim and threatening to kill her. I consider the circumstances of this offence to be serious. Whilst he may not have been in possession of a weapon, he had his physical strength over the victim and threats that he would kill her. He took complete advantage of her vulnerability and isolation.
Mr Ng acknowledges that the attempted robbery, Count 2, was the most serious offence. However, in this case, he produced a knife and this elevates the robbery into the category of an armed robbery. Mr Ng seeks to suggest otherwise by relying on the defendant’s statement under caution, that the knife he produced was a toy metal knife.
In Count 4, the offence he admitted to, he also stated that he was carrying a toy silver metal knife. Whatever the description of the knife, the fact remains that it was made of metal and used as a weapon. Mr Ng submits that the third offence of robbery, Count 4, was a result of an admission from the defendant and there was no other evidence for it. That is so, and I will take that into account.
Mr Ng submits a number of authorities to argue that the robberies cannot be properly characterised as armed robberies. He relies on the case of HKSAR v Tam Kwok Keung [2011] 1 HKLRD 141, which involved an attempted robbery on a sex worker where the defendant unsuccessfully tried to tie up the hands and neck with electric wire. The facts are different in that case, from the cases that I have before me.
He also relies on the case of HKSAR v On Ling [2005] 1 HKC 227 where the defendant robbed the victim wielding a rolled up newspaper, pretending he had a weapon. The court held that even though the victim had been frightened by the prop, he was not at risk of any physical harm from its use and the guideline for an armed robbery was not appropriate for a case where a dummy weapon was used.
Clearly, it will depend on the circumstances of the case as to what the appropriate sentence should be but the fear or concern of the victim is a fact that should be taken into account, even when a dummy weapon is used. These were frightening episodes for the victims and this is a factor that should be properly taken into account when imposing an appropriate sentence.
The defendant embarked on a series of crimes of robbery and theft, targeting single women. The sex workers the defendant victimised are particularly vulnerable and should be protected.
In accordance with the sentencing guidelines for robbery, as set out in Mo Kwong Sang v R [1981] HKLR 610, a sentence should appropriately reflect the law’s opprobrium against anyone targeting for robbery a single woman, in particular, a sex worker who is at serious risk because of her vulnerability and isolation. They are not an easy target and the law will protect them.
On Count 1, I impose a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment. You attacked and robbed a sex worker working alone from a room. The violence you inflicted on the victim and the threat to kill her was menacing. She was alone and very frightened by your aggression and threats. A one‑third discount for your plea of guilty reduces the sentence to 4 years’ imprisonment.
On Count 2, I impose a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment. You attempted to rob a sex worker by producing a knife, which although you describe as a toy, was made of metal. You used it as a weapon and with effect. A one‑third discount for your plea of guilty reduces the sentence to 4 years’ imprisonment.
On Count 3, I impose a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment. After the victim had provided you with sexual services you fled, having stolen $500 from her. A one‑third discount for your plea of guilty reduces the sentence to 8 months’ imprisonment.
On Count 4, I impose a starting point of 4½ years’ imprisonment. I have taken into account that this offence was a result of your admission to the police. A one‑third discount for your plea of guilty reduces the sentence to 3 years’ imprisonment.
On Count 5, I impose a starting point of 12 months’ imprisonment, which I reduce by one-third for your plea of guilty to 8 months’ imprisonment.
On Count 6, I impose a starting point of 3½ years’ imprisonment, which I reduce by one-third for your plea of guilty to 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
This was a particularly daring burglary, again, preying on the vulnerability of a sex worker. The items that you had abandoned, you admitted you intended to steal. An aggravating feature to this case is your attempt to escape apprehension by the police. Your threatening behaviour towards the police created a dangerous situation, and as I have said, the police officers involved should be commended for the way they handled it.
Bearing in mind your young age, the multiplicity of offending and taking into account the totality principle, I impose an overall sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment.
The sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment on Count 2 will be made consecutive as to 2 years to the sentence of 4 years on Count 1, and the sentences of Counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 will be made concurrent to the sentence on Count 1.
The net result is that you are accordingly sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment.