HKSAR v. WONG SHING CHI AND OTHERS

HCCC 66/2023

[2024] HKCFI 79

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 66 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Introduction

1.  The present case involve five charges and eight defendants.  They all pleaded guilty to the respective charge or charges that they each faced before a magistrate and they were committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.

2.  They confirmed their pleas and admitted the Summary of Facts before me in the last occasion and were convicted as charged accordingly. 

The Charges

3.  Charge 1 (against D1 to D7):  Conspiracy to rob. 

4.  Charge 2 (against D3 to D7):  Possession of offensive weapon in a public place. 

5.  Charge 3 (D1 and D5): Robbery.  

6.  Charge 4 (D8):  Robbery. 

7.  And Charge 5 (D3): Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence. 

The Facts

8.  I adopt the Summary of Facts that have been read out and agreed by the defendants, as follows: -

“Case 1 – Charges 1-2

1. D1-7 had been jointly charged with all other accused for 1 count of “conspiracy to rob” (Charge 1), D3-7 were jointly charged for 1 count of “possession of offensive weapon” (Charge 2)  in relation to a case in December 2019.

(1)  At 1120 hours on 3 December 2019, a red taxi with registration number KM2779 was parked near lamppost AF0791, Sheung Lok Street, Ho Man Tin. D1 got off from the driver’s seat and took out a pair of licence plates WG7835 from the boot and replaced the licence plates of the taxi (“Red Taxi”). D1 then returned to the driver’s seat.

(2)  At 1135 hours, D1 drove the Red Taxi to Sheung Lok Street near lamppost AF0781. At 1137 hours, a few masked males with caps alighted from a white Toyota Prius with registration number VH2951 (“White Prius”)  and boarded the Red Taxi. At 1138 hours, the White Prius and Red Taxi were driven away towards Fat Kwong Street. There was only one male inside the White Prius.

(3)  At 1200 hours, the Red Taxi and White Prius returned to Sheung Lok Street and were parked near lamppost AF0785. At 1239 hours, three masked males with caps got off the Red Taxi and boarded the White Prius.

(4)  At 1253 hours, the operation turned overt. Three unmarked police vehicles surrounded the Red Taxi and White Prius. Plainclothes police officers approached the Red Taxi (with D1, D5, D7 onboard):

(i)  D5 and D7 respectively fled from the front and rear nearside door, PC15271 (“PW8”)  and PC18397 (“PW10”)  respectively gave chase to D5 and D7 without losing sight of them. D5 was eventually intercepted and arrested by PW8 at Sheung Lok Street. Under caution, D5 said he did not know anything. D7 was eventually intercepted by PW10 at about 600m away. Under caution, D7 remained silent. Both D5 and D7 were wearing masks, gloves, and a pair of blue jeans inside a pair of black trousers. D5 had a mobile phone with 2 sim cards with him. D7 had a black mask inside the pocket of his jeans.

(ii)  PC19953 (“PW4”)  saw that D1 held the steering wheel with both hands. PW4 shouted “Police, freeze, raise your hands” when he approached D1 but was ignored. Suddenly, D1 drove forward. The Red Taxi almost hit PW4 and bumped into the police vehicle. PW4 gave the 2^nd warning but D1 drove forward again and collided with the police vehicle. PW4 drew and pointed his gun at D1 and gave the 3^rd warning or he would shoot. D1 finally raised his hands. D1 was removed from the driver seat. D1 put up a struggle and tried to flee. PW4, with the assistance of PW7, successfully subdued D1 on the ground and handcuffed him. PW4 opened the offside rear door and there were 4 beef knives under the passenger sets. D1 was arrested. Under caution, D1 remained silent. D1 was wearing a glove on his left hand and was in possession of inter alia a glove, four pieces of screws, and iPhone and a mask.

(5)  SGT1633 (“PW3”), PC11970 (“PW5”), PC18425 (“PW6”)  and WPC2489 (“PW9”)  approached the White Prius. They showed their police warrant cards and warned D2, D3, D4, D6 to get off, but they ignored:

(i)  The doors were locked and thus PW5 and PW6 respectively smashed the rear offside window and the front nearside window. Suddenly, the driver (D2)  drove forward and pushed the Red Taxi about half a metre forward. PW3 was almost hit. PW3 drew and pointed a gun at D2 and shouted “Police, freeze, stop moving the car or I will shoot”. D2 ignored the warning and moved the White Prius backward colliding with the police vehicle which had police inside.

(ii)  PW6 tried to open the front nearside door but it was locked. PW6 then smashed the rear nearside window and opened the door. PW6 grabbed D3 out of the White Prius. D3 tried to flee but was subdued. D3 was arrested. Under caution, D3 remained silent. D3 was wearing a cap, a mask, a pair of gloves, a pair of grey shorts inside a pair of black pants and had HK$4,780 with him.

(iii)  SGT6198 (“PW7”)  saw that D4 sat at the front passenger seat. PW7 opened the door and D4 tried to run away. D4 was subdued and arrested. Under caution, D4 remained silent. D4 was wearing a pair of blue jeans inside a pair of black trousers. He had two mobile phones, one with sim card and one without sim card.

(iv)  PW3 walked closer to D2 and gave the 2^nd warning. D2 ignored and drove forward, pushing the Red Taxi another half a metre forward. PW3 dashed back and issued the 3^rd warning. D2 drove the White Prius backward and collided with the police vehicle. At 1255 hours, PW3 fired a shot which hit the windscreen frame on the driver seat. D2 finally raised his hands and opened the door. D2 was arrested. Under caution, D2 remained silent.

(v)  PW9 opened the rear offside door and saw D6 with his head injured. D6 was arrested. Under caution, D6 remained silent.

2. On the Red Taxi (Dl, D5, D7), the following matters are noted:-

(1)  A handbag containing the HKID, driving licence and home permit of D1 was seized from the driver's seat. A black jacket and a pair of gloves were found in the storage compartment of the driver's door.

(2)  A green bag containing two machete with cases were found under the rear offside passenger seat. A brown 120cm long hammer, and a grey bag containing three 30cm long beef knives with cases were found under the rear nearside passenger seat.

3. On the White Prius (D2, D3, D4, D6), the following matters are noted: -

(1)  Three gloves, a grey mask and three caps were found under the rear passenger seat.

(2)  A grey mask and a glove were found on the front passenger seat. Inside the boot found a black jacket, a black bag and a green jacket.

4. D1 under caution admitted the following: -

(1)  Ah Tsuen was a big brother of D1. “Ah Kam” was a friend of Ah Tsuen. D1 did not know the full name of “Ah Kam”. D1 owed debts of about HK$200,000.

(2)  On 1 December 2019, an unknown person called him saying that “Ah Kam” asked him to drive away a taxi parked in North Point. The next day morning, “Ah Kam” called D1 and asked him to drive the taxi to Anderson Road, Choi Hung. About 10 minutes after his arrival, a silver 7 seater came. “Ah Kam” and Ah Tsuen got off the silver 7 seater. “Ah Kam” said that there was a robbery job the next day (聽日有單野做，係搶野)  and asked whether Dl and Ah Tsuen were interested. They would each be given HK$100,000 to HK$200,000 as reward. Dl and Ah Tsuen both said yes.

(3)  On 3 December 2019, at around 1030 hours, “Ah Kam” told Dl to drive the said taxi to Tsim Sha Tsui. He drove the same to One Sliversea and saw a white private car and the said sliver 7 seater. “Ah Kam”, Ah Tsuen and 3-4 other males were standing behind the white private car. Someone asked him to change the licence plates with false number plates which were purchased by him upon the asking of “Ah Kam”.

(4)  After changing the licence plates, he boarded the taxi and the others returned to the white private car. They went to Ho Man Tin and 5 to 6 males placed the tools including something like a rod and knife inside the boot of his taxi. Then “Ah Kam” told Dl to go to Hung Hom. Their target was to rob a middle aged man (搶個中年男人野)  outside Focal Industrial Centre. They did not stop at the Focal Industrial Centre because there was a call asking them to put on hold. They then returned to Sheung Lok Street, and three of the males got off his taxi and boarded the white private car. About 10 minutes later, the police arrived.

5. D2 under caution admitted the following:-

(1)  D2 rented the White Prius with a friend to do Uber business. D2 knew “Cheung Chai” (D6)  a month ago through “Ah Kin”. He had driven “Cheung Chai” from Tsuen Wan to Mong Kok before and was given HK$100.

(2)  On 3 December 2019, at about 0800 hours, “Ah Kin” asked D2 whether D2 could provide Uber driving service to “Cheung Chai”. They met up at Cheung Sha Wan and “Ah Kin” put a black bag into the boot and asked him to pass the same to “Cheung Chai”. D2 then received “Cheung Chai”’s call and picked up “Cheung Chai” at Bay Bridge Lifestyle Retreat. “Cheung Chai” sat next to D2 and asked him to go Minden Avenue, Tsim Sha Tsui to pick up another passenger. He would be paid after work.

(3)  D2 picked up another male wearing grey shorts (D3)  in Minden Avenue. “Cheung Chai” then instructed him to go to Hoi Fai Road, Tai Kok Tsui. A silver Toyota Alphard was parked there. “Cheung Chai” and the passenger (D3)  got off and walked towards the silver Toyota Alphard. Three males, one short (D5), one tall (D7)  and one fat (D4), got off from the silver Toyota Alphard. They talked and then the fat male (D4)  opened the boot of the White Prius and took out a car plate “VH2591” which he had never seen. The short male said there were too many people and suggested moving to another place. D2 wondered why, but D2 was told that the licence plate would only be changed for a while.

(4)  The said males then boarded the White Prius. The fat male (D4)  instructed him to drive forward and to replace the licence plates. D2 helped changing the licence plates.

(5)  The fat male (D4)  finished a phone call and instructed him to go to Ho Man Tin. During the trip, “Cheung Chai” asked one of the males to hold (a weapon)  against someone (“降住”)  while the other to be the lookouts. They also talked about “7 holes” (“7個窿”)  which was a knife. The 5 males took out some clothes from the black bag and wore masks when they arrived at Ho Man Tin. He saw the Red Taxi there. When the 5 males walked to the Red Taxi, they all wore gloves and brought along the black bag and a red plastic bag. The tall male (D7)  was holding a green bag and D2 was not sure if the “7 holes” was inside it.

(6)  D2 saw that the licence plate of the Red Taxi was changed to a licence plate with pre-fix “WG”. The Red Taxi then driven towards Hung Hom and D2 waited inside the White Prius. About 45 minutes later, “Cheung Chai” called and told him that they were coming back. About 10 minutes later, they took the taxi back. The fat male (D4)  made a call on speaker phone. D2 heard that there were 4 Taiwanese. The other side of the phone said money was upstairs and the Taiwanese were downstairs. There was over $1 million. He would see how it went (有四個台灣佬交收，電話中的人話台灣佬啲錢喺上面，台灣佬喺下面，睇下咩情況，傾交收). The fat male (D4)  suggested to cancel the trade and holding (weapons)  against the Taiwanese downstairs (不如取消交收，喺下面降住台灣佬). “Cheung Chai” agreed. The other side said that he would see how it went and hung up the call.

(7)  The shorter male (D5)  stayed in the taxi while the other 4 returned to the White Prius. “Cheung Chai” asked D2 to wait for a longer time. Not long later, a van stopped in front of the Red Taxi. He thought it was their enemy because it was not a police vehicle. The males asked them to get off the car and smashed the glasses. The fat male asked him to reverse the car. He then realised that they were police officers. He raised his hands but the White Prius moved forward. The police fired. He raised his hands and got off the car.

Case 2 - Charges 3 (D1, D5)

6. On 1 December 2019, at around 1545 hours, a taxi with registration number KM3182 stopped outside Man Cheung Jewellery Goldsmith (“Jewellery Shop”)  at To Kwa Wan Road, Hung Hom. 4 masked males with gloves (including D5)  got off the taxi driven by D1 and rushed into the Jewellery Shop. One of the males shouted “Robbery” and demanded the shop owner CHAN Yiu-leung (PW43)  and the staff WONG Kong-fan (PW44)  to stand aside and surrender all the goods. CHAN Po-lin (PW45)  who was working in the back office hid under the table and triggered the alarm.

7. 2 males, respectively holding a 40-cm long knife, guarded the staff, while the other 2 smashed the showcases with hammers and took the gold ornaments into a grey bag. After 1 to 2 minutes later, the 4 males boarded the same taxi and drove away towards the Whampoa direction. The incident was captured by CCTV.

8. 248 pieces of gold ornaments valued at HK$1,204,653 were stolen. Some gold ornaments were damaged and the total loss suffered by Jewellery Shop was HK$1,222,606.

9. D1 under caution stated the following:-

(1)  “Ah Kam” was in charge of Case 2, because on or about 28 November 2019, “Ah Kam” mentioned that he would “do” the Jewellery Shop (會做呢間金行)  and asked D1 to drive to that place to check the road condition. He did so and told “Ah Kam” that it was “ok”.

(2)  On 30 November 2019, “Ah Kam”, “Ah Tsuen”, “Fat Chai”, “Cheung Chai” and he came out to discuss the details. D1 was responsible for driving and would be given over HK$100,000 as reward. “Fat Chai” would take the jewelleries; Ah Tsuen would control the scene and “Ah Kam” would smash the glasses. They would drop Ah Tsuen’s car, which was a 7 seater with registration number “RA9xxx”, at Habour Plaza, Hung Hom and took his taxi to rob the Jewellery Shop.

(3)  On 1 December 2019, in the morning, D1 overslept and “Ah Kam” told him to wait at the oil station at Tai Po Road. After he arrived, the silver 7 seater came. D1 was instructed to follow the silver 7 seater. Later on, D1 was asked to buy 4 pairs of white shoes and a grey bag at Shum Shui Po and black masks in Hung Hom.

(4)  D1 drove to Habour Plaza. At about 1515 hours, the silver 7 seater arrived. Someone got off the car and took the masks, shoes and grey bag from D1. 5 minutes later, they got on his taxi. “Ah Kam” asked him to drive to the Jewellery Shop.

(5)  Ah Tsuen got off the taxi with a knife while the others were holding a knife or a hammer and the grey bag. D1 stayed in the taxi. D1 saw that Ah Tsuen pointed the knife at a man. The one who stood close to the door smashed the showcase. About one minute later, they all got on the taxi. D1 drove them to Habour Plaza and they boarded the silver 7 seater. D1 changed the licence plates of the taxi and returned home.

(6)  D1 had not received his rewards. He did not know where the stolen goods were.

10. D5 under caution stated that he was involved in Case 2. D5's role was to hold a knife to “control the scene” (入店持刀控場)  so that the shop owner would not move. D5 was wearing black clothes. D5 did not know who planned the robbery and he could not recall any other details.

Case 3 (D8, D3)

Charges 4, Robbery (D8)

11. On 8 November 2019, at around 1314 hours, D8 waved his hand outside Union Classic Watch (“Watch Shop”)  situated at Shop 14A, G/F, Block B, Yan On Building, 1 Kwong Wa Street, Mong Kok. CHAN Shun-yuan, staff of the Watch Shop (PW56)  opened the electronically locked glass door to let D8 in. D8 claimed that he wanted to buy a watch for his girlfriend. When PW56 introduced a “Cartier” watch to D8, D8’s phone rang and said that his customer had arrived and he would come right away. D8 then told PW56 that he would be leaving. When D8 left, two males each holding a rucksack rushed into the Watch Shop. One of the males took out an 18-inches long beef knife from a bag and pointed it at PW56 threatening him not to move and to open the showcases.

(1)  PW56 opened the showcases and the other male grabbed the watches into a rucksack. The male holding a beef knife demanded PW56 to open the safe. PW56 unlocked the safe and pressed the alarm to alert the police. The male took the watches inside the safe and instructed PW56 to open the front entrance. PW56 took the remote pretending to unlock the door and seized the opportunity to escape via the rear door. PW56 then used the remote to close the roller shutters at the entrances, but the two males escaped via the rear door. The two males boarded a white Toyota 7-seater (“White Toyota 7-seater”)  with registration number GC618 and fled.

(2)  The incident was captured by CCTV. CCTV captured that after D8 walked out of the Watch Shop, he pushed the glass door twice to prevent it from closing. After the two males got into the Watch Shop, D8 left. Also, when the roller shutters were going down, a male got off from the White Toyota 7-seater and tried to stop it from closing but failed. Eventually, the three males (the two robbers and male who tried to stop the roller shutter from closing)  boarded the White Toyota 7-seater and fled.

(3)  A total of 32 watches valued at HK$4,598,025 were stolen.

12. D8 under caution stated the following:-

(1)  D8 had known LEUNG Kwok-wai (“LEUNG”)  for over 20 years. About two days before Case 3, LEUNG told him that someone would contact him and he could make money. That night, a male called “Fei Chai” called him. “Fei Chai” asked him to go to a watch shop in Kwong Wah Street the next day. He would be paid HK$15,000 as reward, after the door of the watch shop was opened. D8 sensed that it must be something bad (我覺得一定係衰野)  and thus he asked “Fei Chai” how he could do better to avoid getting into trouble.

(2)  On 7 November 2019, at around 1100 hours, “Fei Chai” told him that the timing was not good and asked him to go to the watch shop the next day.

(3)  On 8 November 2019, in the morning, “Fei Chai” asked him to go to Kwong Wah Street and waited for his call. “Fei Chai” told him to go to the Watch Shop. He got into the Watch Shop, and checked out some lady watches. Then, “Fei Chai” called him and asked D8 to leave. He reckoned that it was to open the door to let the robbers in (我都意會到係開門俾啲劫匪入黎打刧啦). When he left, three masked males aged between 20 and 30 holding knives rushed into the Watch Shop, and declared robbery. A white private car was parked outside the shop. D8 called “Fei Chai” and asked whether he should make a report to the police. “Fei Chai” said no and told him to leave.

(4)  At night, D8 called LEUNG and asked when he would be paid. A few days later, LEUNG gave D8 cash for HK$10,000. D8 told LEUNG that it was robbery and LEUNG said that he would be given extra HK$15,000. They then went to the Mainland to have massage. Subsequently, LEUNG gave him HK$15,000.

13. PW56 positively identified D8 in the ID parade.

Charge 5, Money Laundering (D3)

14. A house search on D3's residence was conducted. Inside a wardrobe of D3's residence, it was found HK$120,000, a Franck Muller watch bearing serial number S/N 259 (and belonging to the Watch Shop)  (“the Watch”)  and an iPhone. Under caution, D3 said that the money was his saving and “Ah Cheung” (i.e. D6)  lent him the Watch. He believed the Watch was of questionable origin (呢十二萬係我自己儲返黎，而呢隻錶係阿彰借俾我戴，我估呢隻錶係不明來歷，有古怪既). In the subsequent VRI, D3 said that the Watch was given by “Ah Cheung”. He estimated that the Watch was worth over HK$100,000. He did not know why “Ah Cheung” lent the Watch to him nor did he know how “Ah Cheung” obtained the Watch.

Conclusion

15. D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6 & D7 now admit that, on 3 December 2019, near lamppost AF0785, Sheung Lok Street, Ho Man Tin, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, conspired together to commit robbery, as set out in paragraphs 1-5 above.

16. D3, D4, D5, D6 & D7, now admit that, on 3 December 2019, in a public place near lamppost AF0785, Sheung Lok Street, Ho Man Tin, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, had with them offensive weapons, namely five knives and one hammer, as set out in paragraphs 1-5 above.

17. Dl & D5, now admit that, on 1 December 2019, at Man Cheung Jewellery Goldsmith, G/F, Mei King Mansion Phase 2, 245 To Kwa Wan Road, Hung Hom, in Hong Kong, together with 3 males, robbed CHAN Yiu-leung of 248 pieces of gold ornaments, as set out in paragraphs 6-10 above.

18. D8, now admits that, on 8 November 2019, at Union Classic Watch, Shop 14A, Ground Floor, Block B, Yan On Building, 1 Kwong Wa Street, Mong Kok, in Hong Kong, together with other persons unknown, robbed CHAN Shun-yuan of 32 watches, as set out in paragraphs 11-13 above.

19. D3 now admits that, on 3 December 2019, in Hong Kong, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that property, namely, cash for a total sum of HK$120,000 and the Watch, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented any person's proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with the said property.”

Criminal record and antecedents of the defendants.

9.  D1 is aged 31 and was born in Hong Kong.  He completed Form 5 education and he claimed to be a transportation worker.  He is single.  He appeared in court in five previous occasions involving 12 convictions between 2018 and 2021 involving one record of theft and two records of taking conveyance without authority between 2018 and 2021.  He also has a record of claiming to be a member of triad society and acting as a member of triad society back in 2010.  His last conviction was dangerous driving in 2021. 

10.  D2 is aged 25 and was born in Hong Kong.  He was educated up to Form 6 and he has a clear record.  He claimed to be a transportation worker.  He is single. 

11.  D3 is aged 24 and was born in Hong Kong.  He completed Form 3 education and was a waiter by occupation. He is single.  He had one previous conviction of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was put on probation for 18 months in 2014. 

12.  D4 is aged 30 and was born in Hong Kong.  He completed Form 4 education and was a driver by occupation. He is single and he has seven previous convictions including indecent assaults, AOABH, claiming to be a member of triad society, trafficking in dangerous drugs, and common assault between 2008 and 2018. 

13.  D5 is aged 25 and was born in the mainland.  He only completed Form 1 education.  He is single and he has two previous convictions of trafficking in dangerous drugs and possession of dangerous drugs in 2012 and 2019 respectively for which he was sentenced to training centre and a drug addiction treatment centre. 

14.  D6 is aged 29 and was born in the mainland.  He completed Form 3 education and is still single.  He had appeared in court on six occasions between 2010 and 2021 involving seven convictions including two common assaults, affray, and acting as member of triad society. 

15.  D7 is aged 29 and was born in the mainland.  He completed Form 3 education and was a transportation worker.  He is still single and he had five previous convictions including wounding, AOABH, possession of dangerous drugs, burglary, and trafficking in dangerous drugs between 2010 and 2017.  His last conviction was trafficking in dangerous drugs for which he was sentenced to 47 months’ imprisonment and he was discharged in October 2019. 

16.  D8 is now 36 and was born in Hong Kong.  He completed Form 4 education and he claimed to be a salesman.  He is still single and he had ten previous convictions between 2013 and 2014 involving possession of dangerous drugs, four charges of theft, and three charges of obtaining property by deception, and two charges of obtaining services by deception. 

Mitigations

D1

17.  In mitigation, Miss Nisha Mohamed, counsel for D1, told the court that D1 had a difficult childhood.  He was adopted by his parents when he was three months old.  However, his adoptive mother was cold towards him and she never showed him affection of love and has never played a part in his childhood.  He was closer to his adoptive father, but he passed away four years ago. 

18.  He graduated from Queen’s College Hong Kong and he did well in his study but failed in his English paper.  He did not have the drive to study further and he went to work at the age of 16.  He got involved with the wrong company and got introduced to crime and committed the previous offences. 

19.  Prior to this incident, a colleague of D1 asked if he could take out a loan for him in D1’s name.  D1 agreed to help him out.  At first payments were repaid so he trusted this colleague, but when D1 took out another loan for this colleague, the loan was not repaid.  D1 was stuck with the debt.  He told a friend about his predicaments and the friend referred him to take part in the robbery for which he was now arrested. 

20.  His role was simply to drive and he was not told the full details of the robbery.  He was only drawn to take part in the robbery as a desperate attempt to pay off the debt, it is submitted. 

D2

21.  Ms Rachael Siu, counsel for D2, told the court that after graduation, D2 worked as a delivery worker and an Uber driver.  At the time of the offence, he was earning approximately $10,000 per month.  He was living with his parents and three siblings at the time of the offence.  His father is a construction worker and his mother and sister both work as clerks.  D2 has two younger brothers now aged seven and three years old who are still in school.  He would contribute a few thousand dollars to the household expenses every month. 

22.  Regarding D2’s role as a driver, Ms Siu told the court that D2 joined the robbery because he was in financial difficulty.  Apart from the contribution to his family, he was also behind some credit card payments.  Ms Siu emphasised that D2 is remorseful and pleaded guilty as soon as he can.  He has reflected himself during the time of the remand and feels ashamed of what he did and the burden he caused to his parents and siblings. 

23.  He has a clear record and this is the first time he committed an offence.  It taught him a great lesson and he is determined to turn over a new leaf.  He plans to study for certificates in construction or mechanical maintenance in the prison, so that he could work to contribute to the family financially. 

24.  D2 submits five letters from his family and friends for mitigation, which I have considered.  His parents and sister wrote to plead for leniency.  They commented that D2 was a filial son and caring bother.  He took care of the younger brothers and his late grandfather before this offence.  They believe that D2 is remorseful now and has learned a lesson and will turn a new leaf. 

25.  Ms Siu urged the court to consider that in the present case, the conspiracy was stopped by the police and no actual harm and violence was involved.  D2 was not the mastermind and he was recruited as a driver only.  D2 only acted as he did in a panic when the police were closing in and he had no intention of inflicting harm to the police. 

26.  Ms Siu also referred the court to HKSAR v Tsang Chi Ling and Kwok Ka Shun (HCCC63/2014, unreported), one of the seven authorities produced by the prosecution and submitted the facts and the modus operandus of the robbery there were very similar to the present case.  A starting point of 7½ years was adopted by Mr Zervos J, as he then was. 

D3

27.  Ms Priscilia Lam, counsel for D3, told the court that D3 was still 20 years old and was working as a waiter at the time of the offence.  He was the sole breadwinner of the family and he had to support his unwell parents, an elderly grandmother and a younger brother with his income.  His father had suffered brain cancer and had to undergo a surgery in the end of 2019.  In order to earn some quick money, D3 agreed to join the robbery as he was under immense financial stress, but he just followed the others without knowing the details of the intended robbery. 

28.  D3’s father is now paralysed, I was told, despite various treatments he received.  His mother also suffered from breast cancer unfortunately.  His grandmother is now 96 years old and, of course, requires constant caring.  D3 submits a letter from his mother and she prayed for leniency from the court so that D3 can unite with the family as soon as possible. 

29.  Ms Lam, in her mitigation, referred the court to HKSAR v Cheung Tak Wa and Another [2011] 2 HKLRD 923, a case concerning conspiracy to rob.  The applicant there agreed to rob with another applicant with chloroform, but he withdrew at the end.  The trial judge imposed a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment and the Court of Appeal substituted with a sentence of 4½ years’ imprisonment.  Ms Lam submitted that the starting point for Charge 1 should not be higher than 6 years’ imprisonment, and invited the court to take into account the lower culpability of D3. 

30.  As for Charge 2, possession of offensive weapon, it is submitted that the sentence should run wholly concurrent to the sentence on Charge 1 as they were part and parcel of the same offence.  The sentencing guideline of 5 years as set out in Mo Kwong Sang had already taken into account of the fact that weapons would be displayed to the victim. 

31.  For Charge 5, money laundering, Ms Lam referred the court to the case of Secretary for Justice v Siu Yun Yee [2017] 3 HKLRD 678, concerning a black or illicit money totalling in the sum of $630,000.  In that case, the Court of Appeal held that the appropriate starting point is 18 months’ imprisonment.  As the total value of the watch in Charge 5 was not known and D3 estimated that it was over $100,000, and D3 had no knowledge of the predicate offence, Ms Lam submitted that the sentence should be in the range of 12 months’ imprisonment. 

32.  Finally, it is also submitted that the sentence on Charge 5 should run partly consecutive to Charges 1 and 2 on account of the totality principle. 

D4

33.  Mr Ernest Yuen, counsel for D4, informed the court that D4’s parents divorced in 2016.  Since then, D4 had never seen her mother again.  Prior to the arrest, D4 was a transportation worker earning around $18,000 to $20,000 per month.  He was living with his father.  D4’s father had been unemployed for more than 10 years because of the injury from work.  In recent years, D4’s father also suffered from stroke and other illnesses.  D4 had been responsible for taking care of him.  Due to the economic downturn in 2019, D4 became unemployed.  As a result, he was lured to commit the present offence with a view to earning some quick money. 

34.  Mr Yuen submitted a letter of mitigation written by D4 in which he had expressed remorse and apologised to his aged old father who still came to visit him in the detention despite his poor health.  He promised to turn over a new leaf and prayed for a lenient sentence. 

35.  As for Charge 1, Mr Yuen referred to the case of Lin Jinhuang and Two Others, CACC 171/2008, and the Chinese case of Ma Hoi Wing and Five Others, CACC 534/2013, both in which a  9 years’ starting point is adopted.  The first case, however, involved the possession or the use of a firearm and both cases also involved the bringing of people from the mainland to commit robbery. 

36.  As for Charge 2, it is submitted that the possession of offensive weapon arose from the same set of facts, which could be said to be part and parcel of the robbery charge.  The culpability of Charge 2 has already been reflected in the sentence of Charge 1, so the court was invited to order the sentences on both charges to run concurrently.

D5

37.  Miss Karen Lau, counsel for D5, submitted that D5 understood that the only mitigating factor of his case is his guilty plea.  D5 made deep reflection during the four-year remand and has now turned a new leaf, I was told his plan was to pursue further studies in the prison and hopes to prepare himself by studying for a number of courses and to have the skills to prepare himself for his future after release from the prison. 

38.  Miss Lau told the court that D5 committed the present offence due to financial hardship.  By the time the offence was committed, he has used up all his savings.  Miss Lau stressed that D5 was not the mastermind of the cases and he was merely recruited to join the robbery. 

39.  For Charge 1, Miss Lau emphasised that no actual violence was used on anyone and no loss was caused. She asked the court to order the sentence on Charges 1 and 2 to run concurrently as they arose in the same incident. 

40.  For Charge 3, Miss Lau submitted that no actual violence was used on the staff members of the jewellery shop and no one was injured.  D5 co-operated with the police and made full confession under caution. 

41.  A mitigation letter written by D5 was produced in which he said he is deeply remorseful and asked the court to be lenient to him so that he can be released as early as possible to take care of the family. 

42.  Miss Lau referred the court to two sentencing cases in the Court of First Instance in her submissions.  The first one is HKSAR v Gurung Sanjan and Another ([2022] HKCFI 3516, unreported).  Another one is HKSAR v Pun Lokendra Bahadur ([2023] HKCFI 1384, unreported).  In both cases, a jewellery shop was robbed.  In both cases, five or six robbers were involved and the use of hammer and other weapons in the course of robbery.  A starting point of 7 years was adopted in both cases. 

D6

43.  Mr Luk King-wan, counsel for D6, informed the court that D6 has been living with his mother aged 51 and his younger sister aged 15 and his stepfather.  He has worked in the logistics industry, construction field and as a bartender and contributed half of his salary to his family.  At the material time, D6 has been unemployed for 4 months and he was tempted to earn some quick money by some dubious peers and he was promised $30,000 as reward. 

44.  Mr Luk said D6 is now deeply remorseful and he feels ashamed before his mother and younger sister. His mother is also diagnosed with cancer in April this year.  I have read the letters written by D6 and his mother.  D6 is a filial son in the eyes of the mother and she believes her son has learned a painful lesson and she plead for leniency.  D6 is determined to turn a new leaf and seeks to study in the prison to better himself when he is released. 

45.  Among the authorities submitted by the prosecution, Mr Luk submitted that the facts in HKSAR v Tsang Chi Ling and Kwok Ka Shun, HCCC 63/2014, is most similar to the present case.  A starting point of 7½ years was adopted. 

46.  In relation to the possession of offensive weapon charge, Mr Luk submitted that it is committed in pursuance and as a consequence of the conspiracy to the rob charge and therefore, he urged the court to impose the sentences on two charges to run concurrently.

D7

47.  Mr Samson Hung, counsel for D7, informed the court that prior to the remand, D7 has lived together with his mother, aged 55, who is a widow together with his elder and younger brother, who is aged 30 and 26 respectively. 

48.  Mr Hung told the court that it was out of financial reasons and under bad peer influence that D7 committed the present two offences.  Mr Hung produced a letter of mitigation written by D7 and D7 prayed for leniency.  He is remorseful for what he did and is prepared to shoulder the legal consequences, I was told.  To rehabilitate himself, D7 has completed a course in Christian studies during his remand and strive to turn over a new leaf. 

49.  In relation to Charge 1, Mr Hung relied on the Court of Appeal case in Lin Jinhuang and Two Others, CACC 171/2008 (unreported).  This is a conspiracy to rob case where the Court of Appeal considered that a starting point of 9 years’ imprisonment was appropriate.  The Court of Appeal found that the case involved a well-conceived operation which had substantial pre-planning, specifically recruitment of a number of persons as well as provisions of transportation, accommodation and equipment.  Further, the execution of the object of the conspiracy involved bringing people in from the mainland to carry out robbery in Hong Kong.  The people involved in carrying out the conspiracy were all armed, one of them even with an imitation firearm. 

50.  Mr Hung submitted that the present case is less serious as it is less well planned and less sophisticated.  Also, it did not involve the recruitment of mainlanders and the provision of accommodation to the co-conspirators.  Furthermore, no imitation firearms were provided in the present case.  Mr Hung submitted that a starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment was appropriate for Charge 1. 

51.  For Charge 2, he also relied on paragraph 33 of the judgment in Lin Jihuang and urged the court to follow the same approach and order the sentences on the two charges to run concurrently.  Finally, he urged the court not to enhance D7’s sentence on account of his previous convictions.

D8

52.  In mitigation, Ms Lisa Yip, counsel for D8, emphasised the fact that Charge 4 occurred on 3 December 2019 and appears to be a separate and independent incident involving D8 and other unknown persons.  No evidence that the robbers in Charge 4 had anything to do with the other charges in this case or that D8 is in any way had the knowledge or involvement with other charges or that D8 knew the other defendants in this case or vice versa. 

53.  Ms Yip emphasised the role of D8 was akin to a foot soldier and he was in no way a party to the planning or the organising of the robbery in Charge 4. 

54.  Ms Yip told the court that D8 has a fiancé and they had planned to get marry prior to this incident.  His fiancé was still willing to wait for his release from prison and to give him full support to turn over a new leaf. 

55.  D8’s father is now 70 years old and is still working in a tea restaurant earning only sufficient income to support himself and D4’s mother who is now already 69 years old. 

56.  Prior to the offence, D8 was working as a sales person earning approximately $20,000 a month, but after the social events took place in the mid-2019, his income was drastically reduced and he was in financial difficulties. 

57.  The only explanation for his commission of the offence was to earn quick money and he eventually received a total of $25,000 for his part in the robbery in Charge 4.  Ms Yip emphasised that D8 agreed to join the robbery without thinking the consequences and he only found out that knives would be used and that the robbery included three other men and a getaway car.  He was just following the instruction on the phone and acted as a lookout and he was not even masked during the incident.  The robbers eventually got away in the car with the valuable loot and that was not within the control and expectation of D8.  That said, D8 now accepted that he was in joint enterprise with the other robbers and he is ready to face the consequences. 

Sentencing Considerations

58.  The leading sentencing guideline case for armed robbery is, of course, Mo Kwang Sang v The Queen [1981] HKLR 610.  When the Court of Appeal set down those guidelines, it explained that they applied to armed robbery involving knives and other dangerous weapons, but not to firearms for which severer sentences were normally imposed. 

59.  The court fixed a base sentence of imprisonment of 5 years for an ordinary case of armed robbery, which would be increased to 6 years if it involved an invasion of private premises, 7 years if it involved any physical violence, and which could be further increased if there were any other aggravating factors, such as, an invasion of domestic premises during the night, the presence of more than one person in a group of robbers, threats made to the victims, ill-treatment of elderly persons and children, and a multiplicity of offences of a similar kind. 

60.  They noted that the background cases that they used as a reference in fixing the tariff involved several culprits armed with knives with which they threatened their victims before robbing them and, in most cases, tying them up.  They said the armed robbery of this nature would cause terror to the victims as well as a loss of their possessions. 

61.  In HKSAR v Ting Chiu & Another [2003] 3 HKLRD 378, it has been held that the fact that a robbery involved more than one culprit was an aggravating factor because the threat or pressure exerted by a number of robbers on the victim were obviously more serious than those exerted by a sole robber. 

62.  The three robbery charges in this case are all in the nature of armed robbery involving knives.  In Charges 3 and 4, during the course of the robbery, the robbers displayed knives and also pointed to the staffs of the jewellery and the watch shop.  In Charge 1, there was the discovery of the two machetes and three long knives and a hammer inside the red taxi.  In my mind, this is an aggravating factor which calls for an enhancement of sentence as all these three cases clearly displayed a preparedness on the part of the defendants to use the knives in the course of the robbery and to instil fear or, if necessary, even to exert physical violence to overcome the victim. 

63.  All the defendants, except D2, have previous records, some related to dishonesty such as theft and some related to violence such as AOABH or common assault.  Those convictions, however, are not of sufficient numbers or similarity to warrant an increase in the sentence following the well-known principles set out in Chan Pui Chi [1999] 2 HKLRD 830.  I accepted that in all the circumstances, the sentence should not be enhance for their previous records.  As for D2, on the other hand, even though he has a clear record, there is clear authority that for an offence as serious as the present, previous clear record is not a significant mitigating factor. 

Charge 1 (D1 to D7)

64.  The nature and circumstances of an armed robbery and the role played by the defendants in it are the key factors when determining an appropriate starting point for the sentence.  The key factors in this case included: 

(1)  The robbery was well-planned and premeditated. Two vehicles (the red taxi and the white Prius)  were arranged and site visits and observation were conducted and car registration plates were also replaced to conceal the original registration plates of the two getaway cars;

(2)  There are seven defendants who were all members of the gang, and D1 and D2 were to be the drivers. They were wearing masks and gloves to conceal their true identities;

(3)  The gang were to be armed with five long knives and a hammer which were placed inside the red taxi. The possession of these offensive weapons in a conspiracy charge is a clear indication of their preparedness to use violence in the course of the robbery;

(4)  The robbery planned to be carried out involved the gang subduing a Taiwanese male in the open street and snatched cash on his person believed to be in the sum of over $1 million;

(5)  Seven members of the gang were intercepted by the police before the robbery took place. D1 and D2 tried to resist the police apprehension and drove away the getaway cars and collided with the police vehicles and almost hit the police officers. The other members of the gang, except D6, all tried to escape from the vehicles, but were apprehended by the police.

65.  Having considered submissions by the defence counsel, I do not find there are sufficient grounds to draw a distinction between the roles of the defendants.  At the time of the offence, each of the seven defendants knew full well that they were going to commit a robbery on the street with the knives and hammer.  They were no doubt part of a joint enterprise where the overall objective was known to them all. 

66.  According to D1’s mitigation, his role was simply to drive and he was not told the full details of the robbery.  Even if it is the case that D2 only realised the complete picture or details at a later stage, it does not begin to mitigate, in my mind, his culpability as he decided to go ahead and participated in the conspiracy and remained to be the driver of the getaway taxi to assist the other members of the gang to escape after the robbery. 

67.  All defendants said they committed the offence because of economic hardships and they wanted to earn quick money.  The court can never accept economic reasons for committing crimes.  There is very little that can be advanced on behalf of the defendants by way of mitigation except for their timely plea of guilty for which they will receive the customary one-third discount to their sentences. 

68.  I have taken into account all the facts and circumstances of the case in Charge 1 and the role that the defendants were to play in carrying it out.  If this robbery had been carried out as planned, it would have involved threatening and subduing the victim through the use of knives, who had with him substantial cash over HK$1 million, and the five defendants would make good their escape in the two getaway cars which were to be driven away by D1 and D2 respectively.  

69.  I have considered the decision in Lin Jinhuang and Two Others, (supra.), where the Court of Appeal considered that the appropriate starting point for the three applicants in a conspiracy to robbery charge is one of 9 years’ imprisonment.  However, as rightly observed by some of the defence counsels in their mitigations, in that case, the execution of the object of the conspiracy involved, of course, the bringing of people in from the mainland to carry out robbery in Hong Kong.  The people involved in carrying out the conspiracy were all armed and one of them even with an imitation firearm.  All these aggravating features are not present in the Charge 1. 

70.  It is worth mentioning, however, that while the counsel for the applicants in Lin Jinhuang(supra.)  have submitted that the upper band of 7 years’ imprisonment laid down in Mo Kwong Sang (supra.)  would be appropriate, the Court of Appeal was quick to dismiss and held that while there may be instances when it is of assistance to have reference to sentence imposed in respect of the substantive offences when considering sentence in respect of conspiracy to commit the offence, the overriding principle remains that the sentence must be appropriate for the offence of which the offender has been convicted.

71.  Having considered the overall circumstances of the case, I consider that the appropriate starting point for D1 to D7, given their different but yet equally important role in the conspiracy in Charge 1, should be one of 7½ years’ imprisonment. And with the one-third discount for their plea of guilty, the sentence imposed on D1 to D7 for Charge 1 is 5 years’ imprisonment. 

Charge 2 (D3 to D7)

72.  D3 to D7, the remaining five members of gang in Charge 1 except the two drivers, were also convicted of POOW of five long knives and one hammer.  Those dangerous weapons were all found by the police in the red taxi.  Clearly, the existence of those items were to be used in the intended robbery and were possessed for unlawful purposes. 

73.  Under section 33 of the Public Order Ordinance, (Cap. 245)  a person convicted of this offence shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 3 years.  In the circumstances of the case, I consider a starting point of 24 months is appropriate.  And with the one-third discount on their pleas of guilty, the sentence on D3 to D7 is one of 16 months’ imprisonment. 

74.  In paragraph 33 of Lin Jinhuang(supra.), the Court of Appeal observed that although possession of the offensive weapon was appropriately charged as separate and distinct offence, it was committed in pursuance and as a consequence of the conspiracy to rob, so it was so much a part of the conspiracy that the sentence imposed should have been ordered to be served concurrently with the appropriate sentence imposed in respect of the conspiracy offence, which would have adequately reflected the overall criminality. 

75.  I therefore agree with the submission by counsels on behalf of D3 to D7 and order that the sentence imposed on Charge 2 should be served concurrently with the sentence on Charge 1. 

Charge 3 (D1 and D5)

76.  The sentencing guideline in Mo Kwong Sang (supra.) applies in this case.  Charge 3 concerned a robbery targeted on a jewellery shop.  D1 played the role of the driver of the getaway taxi while D5 was one of the four male robbers entering the shop to commit the robbery.  Long knives were used to point at the shop owner and the staff in the shop to threaten them to surrender the jewellery.  A hammer was used to smash the glass of the showcase.  The loss suffered by the jewellery shop is well over HK$1.2 million. 

77.  In sentencing this charge, I take into account the following aggravating factors: 

(1)  The robbery in this charge is well-planned and premeditated;

(2)  The robbery was targeted at jewellery shop, which was a private business premises which was particularly vulnerable;

(3)  The robbery involved more than one culprit;

(4)  During the robbery, the robbers had displayed long knives and pointed to the owner and staff of the shop and also smashed the glasses of the showcase; and

(5)  248 pieces of gold ornaments valued at HK$1.2 million were stolen. The loss to the jewellery shop was therefore substantial.

78.  D1 and D5 were acting in concert in this charge, together with the other three culprits.  There is no ground to distinguish their roles in this charge. 

79.  The combined effect of these aggravating factors rendered Charge 3 a very serious case of robbery and I shall adopt an initial starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment on account of the fact that the subject robbery involves an invasion of private premises, that is, a jewellery shop in this case.  Taking into account the aggravating factors identified, the sentence should be further enhanced and I would, in the end, adopt an overall starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment. 

80.  D1 and D5 both pleaded guilty to this charge, for which they will be given one-third discount.  The sentence I impose on D1 and D5 for Charge 3 is therefore 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment. 

Charge 4 (D8)

81.  Charge 4 concerns an armed robbery targeted at a watch shop and the sentencing guideline of Mo Kwong Sang (supra.) was considered. 

82.  During the robbery, D8 was recruited to play the role of a customer in order to successfully gain entry into the watch shop to look for a watch for his girlfriend, and when he pretended to be leaving and opened the door, he just let the two other male robbers to rush into the watch shop to commit the robbery.  The two male robbers were each holding a rucksack.  One of them took out an 18-inch long beef knife from a bag and pointed it to the staff, threatening him not to move and open the showcases.  The staff opened the showcases and the safe, and the other male grabbed the watches into the rucksack.  Eventually, the two male robbers boarded a vehicle and fled. 

83.  Like the other two robbery cases, the robbery in Charge 4 is also well-planned and premeditated.  Apart from the two actual robbers, it involved a driver in a getaway car and D8, of course, who posed as an interested customer in order to get round the fact that the door of the watch shop was not wide open to the public at large but remained closed at all times by an electronically-operated lock to be manned by the staff of the watch shop. 

84.  The use of a long knife to threaten the staff to open the showcase was frightening, of course, and what is more, it also indicated the preparedness of the robbers to use violence.  One of the more aggravating feature is the fact that the substantial economic loss suffered by the watch shop was in the staggering sum of nearly HK$4.6 million.

85.  Under caution, D8 said he was recruited to open the door of the watch shop for a reward of only $15,000. In mitigation, it was said that he did not know that it was an armed robbery and only came to know later.  I find it hard to believe that D8 would be so naïve to believe that he would be awarded for $15,000 just for a simple task of opening the door of the watch shop.  Even accepting for a moment that he may not know the full details of the plan of the robbery, it would be nonsensical for him to say that the two masked males he let inside to the watch shop would commit the robbery with just their bare hands without carrying any weapons. 

86.  Ms Yip described D8 as a foot solider yet without D8’s participation, the two males with the masks and rucksacks on their backs would certainly be denied entry to the watch shop by the staff in the first place and the robbery will be difficult, if not impossible, to be executed.  I see no distinction on D8’s role between a person acting as a lookout and the driver of the getaway car.  After all, the robbery was a joint enterprise and they committed the robbery together, albeit D8’s share of the proceeds of the crime may not be the same as the others. 

87.  In light of the enormous loss suffered by the watch shop, which is HK$4.6 million, although the number of culprits and weapons involved may be less than the other two robberies, I considered that I should also adopt an initial starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment on account that the robbery involves the invasion of a private business premises and enhance the starting point to one of 7 years and 3 months’ imprisonment on account of the aggravating features in this case. 

88.  There is no mitigating factor in D8’s case other than his plea of guilty.  After one-third discount, the sentence, I shall impose on D8 is 4 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

Charge 5 (D3)

89.  D3 also pleaded guilty to this charge in relation to cash in the sum of $120,000 and a Frank Muller watch bearing a serial number 259, which was one of the stolen watches in Charge 4. As said, D3 had tried to explain, firstly, under caution that the cash was his own money and he said that it was D6 who lent him the watch.  He believed the watch was of questionable origin.  He did not know why D6 lent the watch to him and he did not know how D6 obtained the watch. 

90.  As held in the case, HKSAR v Xu Xia Li [2004] 4 HKC, section 25(1)  of the Organised Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455, made no distinction to the culpabilities of a money launderer based only on reasonable belief of the source of the money and that of actual knowledge.  The provision did not attach different culpabilities to the two types of mens rea. 

91.  It was also held that in the context of money laundering, the nature of the indictable offence from which the money was derived was of no particular significance in sentencing, save that if the defendant knew that the money was derived from a very serious crime, it would be an aggravating feature to be taken into account when sentencing. 

92.  The prosecution evidence in this case was insufficient to show that D3 was involved in the robbery of the watch shop (Charge 4).  When considering D3’s knowledge or actual knowledge about the relevant indictable offence, I should not therefore interpret the facts in the most unfavourable way against him. 

93.  That said, by pleading guilty, D3 must have resiled from his original position that the $120,000 cash was his own saving.  Insofar as the cash is concerned, in the absence of any credible explanation, by reason of his own plea in this charge, I concluded that D3 must have accepted that this sum of cash represented the black or illicit money which he knew or had reasons to believe represented proceeds of an indictable offence. 

94.  Insofar as the Frank Muller watch is concerned, it also does not now lie in the mouth of D3 to emphasize that he did not know the watch was a stolen property.  Even accepting for a moment that he did not take part in the robbery of the watch shop, according to what the Court of Appeal has said in Xu Xia Li (supra.), it will not assist him to mitigate the offence when he already admitted under caution that he believed the watch was of questionable or suspicious origin. 

95.  The Summary of Facts does not mention the value of the watch, but after enquiry with the prosecution, the value of the watch is now known and it should be HK$86,000, to which Ms Lam has no objection.  Therefore, the total proceeds of the indictable offence involved in this money laundering charge should be HK$206,000. 

96.  In Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] HKLRD 197, the Court of Appeal reiterated that “the sentencing starting point is 3 years or so where the ‘black money’ involved is between HK$1 million and HK$2 million”.  Taking into account the black money involved in this charge is just about $210,000, I consider the appropriate starting point is 12 months and shall be reduced by one-third to 8 months’ imprisonment.

Totality

97.  Of the five charges, only the sentence on Charge 2 on D3 to D7 shall run wholly concurrent with the sentence imposed on Charge 1 on D3 to D7. 

98.  As for the other robbery charges, Charges 1, 3, and 4, these three charges concerned robberies committed or to be committed on different dates and on different locations and victims or victim’s company and thus merit consecutive sentences, subject, of course, to the consideration of totality. 

Final Sentence

99.  D1 faces Charges 1 and 3. Having regarded totality, I order that 2 years of the sentence on Charge 3 to run consecutively to the sentence imposed on Charge 1. Finally, I order that, D1 is to serve a total sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment for the two charges. 

100.  D2 faces only one charge and it is Charge 1.  Finally, I order that, D2 is going to serve a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment. 

101.  D3 faces three charges, Charges 1, 2, and 5.  The sentence imposed on Charge 2 is to run wholly concurrent with the sentence imposed on Charge 1.  The sentences on these two Charges 1 and 2 is 5 years’ imprisonment. 

102.  The money laundering charge, Charge 5, is a separate and distinct offence with Charges 1 and 2, but because of totality, I further order that 4 months of the sentence on Charge 5 to run consecutively to the 5 years’ imprisonment on both Charges 1 and 2. Finally, I order that D3 is to serve a total of 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment for all these three charges.

103.  D4 faces Charges 1 and 2. The sentence imposed on Charge 2 is to run wholly concurrent with the sentence imposed on Charge 1.  Finally, in D4’s case, I order that the total sentence on Charge 1 and Charge 2 is one of 5 years’ imprisonment. 

104.  D5 faces three charges, Charges 1 to 3.  The sentence imposed on Charge 2 is to run wholly concurrent with the sentence imposed on Charge 1.  Having regarded totality, I order that, 2 years of the sentence on Charge 3 is to run consecutively to the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and Charge 2, and the remaining of the sentence on Charge 3 to run concurrently with the sentence on Charges 1 and 2.  Finally, in D5’s case, he is to serve a total sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment for all these three charges. 

105.  D6 faces Charges 1 and 2. The sentence imposed on Charge 2 is to run wholly concurrent with the sentence imposed on Charge 1.  Finally, I order that, in D6’s case, the total sentence on these two charges is 5 years’ imprisonment. 

106.  D7 faces Charges 1 and 2. The sentence imposed on Charge 2 is to run wholly concurrent with the sentence imposed on Charge 1.  Finally, in D7’s case, I order that the total sentence on these two charges, 1 and 2, is 5 years’ imprisonment. 

107.  D8 only faces one charge and it is Charge 4.  Finally, he is going to serve a sentence of 4 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.