Case Document

DCCC 1201/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1201 OF 2012

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

	HKSAR
	v
	Lau Chak-lam, Andy
----------------------

Before:

HH Judge Casewell

Date:

29 August 2014 at 11.00 am

Present:	Mr Oliver Davies, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
	Miss Tsang Manyi, instructed by W K To & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant

Offence:

Robbery (搶劫罪)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has been convicted after trial of an offence of robbery.

2.The robbery itself can be classified as a “pepper‑throwing” robbery in that nothing that I would describe as dangerous weapon was used, but that the pepper was thrown to facilitate the robbery itself.

3.What was taken was a set of jewellery, earrings, valued at cost at around, I think, $19,000‑odd, with a marked price of $39,000.

4.The defendant is aged 38. He has, on his antecedents, worked as a transportation worker and salesman. He is described in his antecedents statement as being a drug addict, and no doubt it is his addiction that feeds his need to involve himself in criminality. He has a number of criminal convictions for offences involving, in 1999, trafficking in a dangerous drug, for which he received a sentence of 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment; in 2005, for an offence of burglary, a sentence eventually of 2½ years’ imprisonment; in 2009, offences involving the use of false instruments, 2 years’ imprisonment; and in 2011, the same again, 2 years’ imprisonment, for offences involving using a false instrument. Most recently, in February 2013, he was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment for possession of a dangerous drug, and was discharged on 10 April 2013.

5.As far as his personal circumstances are concerned, he is a father. He has a son, aged 4 years old. His girlfriend is the mother of his son. His parents are in their 60s.

6.In mitigation, besides the personal mitigation, it is said that this is a relatively small jewellery shop. The use of pepper would mean there is no long-term damage caused by the use of this item, and it is said that the force used is not the most serious, and that although the robbery itself showed signs of planning, it was in effect poorly planned.

7.The defendant’s defence has been conducted efficiently and has involved the admission, at least in part, of some criminality.

8.I now turn to the question of sentence in this matter. We are dealing here with a robbery. There are clear guidelines for what is called an armed robbery, but that judgment indicates that “armed” refers to knives and other dangerous weapons, and a dangerous weapon must be one that has a risk of severe injury, and the use of pepper would be irritating, but not have that risk, so this would be characterised as an unarmed robbery, where sentences can range up to 4 years’ imprisonment.

9.In the case of HKSAR v Chan Sai Chiu [2001] 1 HKLRD 478, the Court of Appeal said a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment could be imposed with a robbery involving the throwing of pepper.

10.In this case we have that, the throwing of pepper, but we also have the location to consider, and this is a jewellery shop, a commercial premises where valuable items are stored and present an invitation to the criminal to act. I consider that to be an aggravating factor taking it beyond an ordinary street robbery involving pepper throwing.

11.I consider that to reflect that aspect, the starting point for sentence in a case such as this should be 5 years’ imprisonment. As this is a conviction after trial, that is of course the finishing point as well.

12.So the sentence will be one of 5 years’ imprisonment.