HKSAR v. CHUNG CHI SHING, STEVE AND ANOTHER

DCCC 322 & 419/2016
(Consolidated)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NOS 322 & 419 OF 2016

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  This is a case of assault with intent to rob involving two defendants. Both defendants in their late teens pleaded guilty before me to one count of assault with intent to rob, contrary to section 10(2) of the Theft Ordinance.

2.  The victim is a 48-year-old woman, Madam Bow.  On the day of offence, 2 February 2016, in the small hours of the night, Madam Bow was walking alone on the pavement near Tai Kiu Tsuen, Yuen Long.  Both defendants approached her; the 1^st defendant in front of her, the 2^nd defendant from behind.  Soon after the 2^nd defendant pushed her to the ground, they started punching her head for 10-odd times, during which they tried to snatch her Gucci handbag but in vain.

3.  Some passers-by and police officers happened to be passing at the scene of the robbery.  Alerted by the noise of Madam Bow shouting for help, they came to her assistance.  The officers managed to intercept the 1^st defendant, but the 2^nd defendant made good his escape.

4.  The 1^st defendant was arrested, and under caution, he said he tried to rob the woman as he was in need of money.

5.  On the information provided by the 1^st defendant to the police, was arrested at his home about 10 weeks after the robbery. 

6.  In the interview with the police, the 2^nd defendant stated that he and the 1^st defendant had drinks one evening in February.  He suggested doing a robbery to which the 1^st defendant agreed.  They picked the particular spot of the case because of fewer people around.  That is how they ended up committing the robbery.

7.  The 1^st defendant, aged 18, has five previous, two of them theft, two common assault.  His last conviction in December 2013 is trafficking in dangerous drugs for which he was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. 

8.  The 2^nd defendant, aged 17, has six previous, four of them theft, one common assault.  His last conviction in June 2014 is obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty.  For that matter, he was sentenced to DATC.

9.  In mitigation, the 1^st defendant’s lawyer stressed the fact that the defendant admitted his guilt right from the moment when he was arrested by the police and he has been co-operative with them ever since. 

10.  In his letter to court, apart from expressing his remorse for what he did, the 1^st defendant tells the court that he now believes in God and would like to go to church with his family after his release from prison.  He promised he would become a good citizen of the society. 

11.  Counsel for the 2^nd defendant emphasises that the robbers did not use any weapon and the injuries to the victim were not particularly serious.

12.  This is an unarmed robbery despite the fact that the defendants were charged with assault with intent to rob.  There are no sentencing guidelines for unarmed robbery as such, but judging from the authorities of Ting Chiu CACC 174/2003 and some other similar cases, the usual term for an unarmed robbery involving more than one culprit is between 3½ years to 4 years.

13.  Turning to the present case, this is a serious case of unarmed robbery.  The robbers clearly targeted the vulnerable victims, ie lone women walking in a quiet street at night.  Such victims need be protected.  Although no weapon used, they punched her more than 10 times on her head.  There is no reason for her to receive such gratuitous violence.  The fact that she suffered no serious injuries had nothing to do with the robbers.  It was her sheer luck because other people including police officers happened to be in the vicinity and they came to her aid in the nick of time. 

14.  In Ting Chiu, the appellate court said at paragraph 2 of the decision:-

“Robbery involved more than one culprit was an aggravating factor because the threat and pressure exerted by a number of robbers on the victim were obviously more serious than those exerted by a lone robber.”

15.  For the facts of the present case, I take 48 months as starting point.  In the 1^st defendant’s case, he had given information about the other robber to the police, which led to the arrest of the 2^nd defendant. 

16.  Looking at the facts of the case, it is true to say that the police would have great difficulty in finding the other robber without the help from the 1^st defendant. For that matter, I would reduce the starting point by 6 months to 42 months. Insofar as mitigation is concerned, apart from their guilty pleas, there is not anything of substance.  Giving one-third discount, the 1^st defendant is sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment, while the 2^nd defendant, 32 months’ imprisonment.