HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHUNG

DCCC312/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 312 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has been convicted after trial of an offence of attempt to commit a robbery. The serious nature of this offence is obvious. Now, it involved the brandishing of a knife at the first prosecution witness. Having said that, the defendant himself has at no stage contradicted the essential features of the prosecution case. The first prosecution witness’ evidence was not subject to contradiction. The defendant simply said that his consumption of alcohol meant that he did not have the requisite intent. So the factual investigation caused by the defendant’s pleading not guilty has been a very narrow one.

2.  The case itself is unusual because the features that I referred to in my verdict of the defendant’s proximity to the location where the robbery took place, his personal knowledge of certainly some of the ladies who worked there, and the unusual things he said when the robbery took place all made this an attempted robbery which was doomed to failure.

3.  The defendant is a 46-year-old man.  Sometime in between 1984 and 1992, he committed some minor offences.  That is almost 20 years ago now.  During his adult life, he has lived the life of a man of clear record.  He has worked as a print worker, formed his own decoration company. He is self-employed.  I am told from the antecedent statement the defendant has suffered from epilepsy.  

4.  The defendant is single.  He was living with his girlfriend.  That relationship obviously was subject to a number of stresses, and it would appear that following an argument that the defendant took upon himself to commit this attempted robbery.  The defendant was affected by stress when he committed the robbery.  There had been consumption of alcohol, and it may well have led to him making very poor decisions and giving him the courage to have committed the kind of offence he would not normally have considered taking upon himself.  It is certainly an offence that is markedly out of character for the man who has lived for the last 20 years without committing any criminal offences. 

5.  The defendant has committed a serious criminal offence in his life.  He has effectively ruined his life.  There are clear guidelines on sentencing on offences of robbery, and then of course an attempt to commit such an act is as serious as the act itself.  The mitigating factors I have set out cannot in any way substantially detract from the kind of prison sentence that should be imposed in respect of an offence of this nature.

6.  The starting point for a simple armed robbery, a robbery involving the use of some kind of form of arm such as a knife is 5 years’ imprisonment.  That is the case where the weapon was displayed to the victim.  Of course, where the offence involves the invasion of either a private or domestic or business premises, then the sentence can be as high as a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment. 

7.  Having taken all the factors into consideration which I have outlined, given that a knife was displayed to the victim, I consider I should simply take a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment and that my sentence will be one of 5 years’ imprisonment.