HKSAR v. CHAN NGOK TAK

DCCC 497/2019

[2019] HKDC 1371

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 497 OF 2019

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

Introduction

1.  The defendant is convicted upon his own guilty plea of the charge of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

Facts

2.  At the material time, 66-year-old PW1 was a resident of Choi Yee House in Choi Tak Estate.  At about 8:10 pm on 7 May 2019, PW1 was doing exercise at the open space outside Choi Yee House.  She was wearing a gold necklace with a jade pendant (the “Necklace”) which was worth approximately HK$10,000.

3.  Suddenly the defendant approached PW1 from behind, grabbed PW1’s neck, tucked the Necklace away from PW1’s neck and fled.

4.  Whilst PW1 was chasing after the defendant, she met her husband who joined the chase.  PW1 also telephoned her son to ask for assistance.  The defendant was eventually apprehended in the vicinity of Choi Yee House.  The Necklace was subsequently recovered from a flowerbed near Choi Yee House.

5.  PW1 sought medical treatment after the incident.  She was found to have sustained tenderness on her neck.

Previous convictions and antecedent

6.  Prior to the commission of the present offence, the defendant had 7 previous convictions, out of which there was a conviction of burglary sentenced in 1978, a conviction of going equipped for stealing also sentenced in 1978 and one conviction of theft sentenced in 1982.  As those dishonesty-related offences were committed more than 37 years ago, I am not going to take them into account as an aggravating factor in imposing sentence.

7.  The defendant was born in November 1956.  He is now 62 years old.  He received education up to primary six level.  He is married with a 15-year-old son.  The family relies on the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance at about HK$9,000 per month.  The defendant is an addict of heroin and midazolam for about 3 years.

Mitigation

8.  The defendant’s counsel Ms Fung relied on “The Defendant’s Skeleton Submissions on Mitigation” dated 3 October 2019.  Ms Fung submitted that the defendant is now remorseful.  She said the defendant is suffering from heart disease and hepatitis but she confirmed that the diseases are not terminal.

Sentence

9.  In the present case, the defendant committed the offence on his own in a public place against a 66-year-old lady.  No weapon was used but he grabbed PW1’s neck before he tucked the Necklace away from PW1’s neck.

10.  Having considered the Court of Appeal’s judgments in HKSAR v Lam Ka Hung CACC 294/2003 and HKSAR v Ku Kwok Wai and another CACC 14/2012, I consider a starting point of 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment appropriate.

11.  I give one-third discount to the defendant for his timely indication of guilty plea.  That one-third discount also reflects the defendant’s remorse.  The sentence is therefore reduced to 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

12.  The defendant’s health condition is not a valid mitigating factor justifying further reduction in sentence.  I note the contents of various mitigation letters submitted but none of them constitute valid mitigating factor.

13.  There being no further valid mitigating factors justifying further reduction in sentence, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.