HKSAR v. Tang Chun Nok
|
DCCC 832/2014 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 832 OF 2014 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant pleads guilty to one charge of robbery (1st charge). On the application of the prosecution, the 2nd charge against the defendant is left on the court file and not to be proceeded with without the leave of the court. 2.The facts admitted by the defendant reveal that at about 3.15 am on 29 July 2014, while Mr Liu, the victim, was taking a rest at Tai Wan Shan Park, Hunghom, the defendant approached the victim. The defendant was holding a beer-bottle-like object wrapped in a plastic bag. He asked the victim if he had followed anyone. He went on asking if the victim knew the fellows of Tai Wan Shan Lo Sun Lo Fu (你識唔識大環山老新老虎啲人) and whether he wanted to follow him to make a living. The defendant further asked the victim to give him money or else he would hit the victim’s head (如果唔畀就打爆你個頭). As the victim was scared, he gave $1,100 to the defendant. 3.The defendant took away the SIM card of the victim’s mobile phone. He gave the victim his nickname as Ah Lok and his phone number. He told the victim to call him if he was interested in following him. The victim then reported the case to the police. 4.On 12 August this year, the defendant was arrested. Under caution, he admitted the offence. 5.The defendant is aged 27. He has 13 previous criminal convictions, including eight for theft and one for robbery in 2012. He was last sentenced for possession of dangerous drugs to DATC a few days ago in the Kowloon City Magistracy. 6.In a written submission for mitigation, Mr Yuen, solicitor for the defendant, tells the court that the defendant received education up to Secondary 4 and last worked as a delivery man earning $8,000 a month. Being single, he was living with his mother and a brother. 7.It is put forward by Mr Yuen that on the night in question, the defendant was drinking beer from a beer bottle made of plastic. On the spur of the moment, as he was indebted to others a large sum of money, he committed the offence. While admitting that the defendant was holding the bottle, threatening that he would hit the victim’s head if he did not give money, the defendant, says Mr Yuen, did not have the intention to use or display the bottle as a weapon. 8.It is further submitted that it was a chance robbery. Mr Yuen asks the court to treat the case as an unarmed robbery. It is emphasised that no injury was caused to the victim. Drawing my attention to a few sentencing authorities on armed and unarmed robbery, he asks the court to take a starting point lower than 4 years’ imprisonment. 9.Robbery is a very serious offence. While the defendant is confirmed to be a drug dependent and has been ordered to receive treatment in DATC, given the gravity of the offence, the only appropriate sentence in the present case is imprisonment. I will bear in mind the effect of a sentence of imprisonment on the DATC order. 10.I accept the mitigation that the defendant was only holding the bag containing a beer bottle which was made of plastic, without further threatening acts to use or display the bottle. I cannot, however, accept that it was an unarmed case. When the defendant said, “如果唔畀就打爆你個頭,” the threat received by the victim was unambiguous, ie the defendant would hit the victim’s head with the object the defendant was holding. The defendant might have no intention at that moment to use or display the beer bottle but he threatened to use it. It was under such threat and pressure that the victim succumbed and surrendered his money. The threat to the victim was further reinforced by the defendant’s implication of his triad background. 11.On the other hand, I would accept that it was not a well-planned offence. I consider that a plastic bottle is not as dangerous a weapon as a glass bottle or sharpened object. I note that no actual physical violence was used. The defendant has a number of previous convictions, including theft and robbery. 12.In all the circumstances, I find 4 years’ imprisonment an appropriate starting point. The only mitigating factor in this case is the defendant’s plea of guilty, for which he will get the full one-third discount. The defendant is therefore sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment. 13.By operation of the law under section 6A(1) of the DATC Ordinance, the DATC order the defendant is now serving will cease to have effect.
|