HKSAR v. Young Kwai Shan

DCCC 821/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL ACTION NO 821 OF 2014

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

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

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

REASONS FOR VERDICT

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

1.The defendant, Young Kwai Shan, pleaded guilty before me to one charge of robbery (Charge 1), one of possession of a dangerous drug (Charge 2), and one of possession of apparatus fit and intended for the smoking of a dangerous drug (Charge 3).

2.On 19 May 2014, at about 6:40 am, a 15-year-old schoolboy, Chan Sui Hung, was on his way to school holding in his hand a Samsung Galaxy tablet computer in white colour which valued at $3,500.  When Chan was outside Tai Chui House, Po Tat Estate, Sau Mau Ping, Hong Kong, the defendant and an unknown male approached him and asked him about the time and function of the tablet.  Chan ignored them and continued walking.  Chan found his shoelaces loosen, so he squatted down to tighten them.  Suddenly, one of these two males attacked Chan’s lips with the knee.  Chan fell as a result. The male who had just attacked Chan robbed the tablet from his hand and ran away with the other male.  Chan gave chase but they boarded a taxi and fled. Chan found his lips bleeding and abrasions at his left elbow resulting from the robbery.  Case was reported.

3.After police investigation, a taxi driver, Mr Tam, was located later on the same day.  Tam stated that he picked up the defendant and an unknown male at about 6:50 am at Po Tat Estate.  Tam was instructed to make a stop at Sau Ching House, Sau Mau Ping Estate first where one of the males alighted and returned to the taxi after about 10 minutes.  He eventually dropped the two males at Po Tat Estate at around 7:25 am.

4.CCTV cameras of Sau Wai House, Sau Mau Ping Estate captured the defendant carrying a white tablet computer at its lift lobby at about 7:07 am of 19 May 2014.  Further investigation revealed the defendant’s friend, Mr Wong, who lived in a flat at Sau Wai House, Sau Mau Ping Estate, received a call from the defendant’s number 55144926 at about 6:57 am on 19 May 2014.  The defendant asked Wong if he was interested to buy a Samsung tablet computer at HK$700.  Wong then asked the defendant to bring it to him for a look first.  The defendant then delivered the tablet to Wong’s home at about 7 am and it was subsequently left with Wong for his consideration.  The tablet was later seized by the police.

5.Chan later confirmed the tablet computer seized at Wong’s home belonged to him and that was also the tablet that had been robbed on 19 May 2014.

6.The defendant was arrested on 20 May 2014 at his home.  Under caution, he admitted his mobile phone number was 55144926.

7.Upon a search of the defendant’s home at Room 2817, Tat Fung House, Po Tat Estate, Sau Mau Ping, the followings were found in the defendant’s bedroom:-

(1) a paper packet containing 0.38 grammes of a powder containing ketamine and a renminbi banknote folded into a packet containing traces of powder containing ketamine, ie the subject matter of Charge 2;

(2) a smoking device consisting of a plastic bottle capped with a porous metal lid and inserted with a straw at the side containing a total of 0.34 litres of a liquid containing traces of cocaine which was an apparatus fit and intended for smoking of cocaine, ie the subject matter of Charge 3.

8.Under caution, the defendant admitted that the ketamine was for his own consumption and the smoking device was for smoking drugs. 

9.The criminal record of the defendant shows that he had been convicted on four previous occasions.  He has one previous conviction for conspiracy to rob and three convictions of possession of dangerous drugs. 

10.Mr Law told me in mitigation that the defendant is now 24 years old.  The defendant’s father had deceased and the defendant resided with his mother before his remand.  The defendant had received education up to Form 1.  He was last employed as a construction site worker and earned $18,000 per month but he had been unemployed for a long time. 

11.Mr Law submitted that the conviction for conspiracy to rob took place when the defendant was only 15 years old.  In the present case, no weapon was used and the injuries suffered by the victim were minor in nature.  

12.It is well-settled that for robbery cases where no weapon was used or displayed, a term of imprisonment up to 4 years is appropriate.  In the present case, the robbery was aggravated by the following factors.  In the first place, the defendant committed the robbery with another man.  Secondly, the use of violence on the victim was excessive.  The defendant and his companion could have easily overpowered the victim, a 15 years old boy, without injuring the victim. 

13.In my judgment, a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment is appropriate.  The defendant is entitled to one‑third reduction for his guilty plea.  That would bring his sentence down to 32 months.  For Charge 2 and 3, a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment is appropriate for both charges. Again the defendant is entitled to one-third reduction for his guilty pleas.

14.For the reasons given on Charge 1, I sentence the defendant to 32 months’ imprisonment.  On Charge 2, I sentence the defendant to 6 months’ imprisonment.  On Charge 3, I sentence the defendant to 6 months’ imprisonment. 

15.I bear in mind the principle of totality.  In my judgment, a total term of 36 months’ imprisonment should sufficiently reflect the overall criminalities of Charge 1, 2 and 3.  In order to achieve that desired totality, I order the sentence for Charge 2 and 3 shall run concurrently with each other but 4 months of the sentences for Charge 2 and 3 shall run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1.  Thus, the total sentence for Charge 1, 2 and 3 shall be 36 months’ imprisonment.