HKSAR v. CHEUNG KAM YAU

DCCC1077/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1077 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to three charges of theft and two charges of robbery. He has accepted the facts presented by the prosecution and I have convicted of those offences.

2.  The details of these offences that are relevant to the sentencing of the accused are set out in the Summary of Facts.  They are as follows.  The 1st Charge relates to an offence committed on 3 July 2011 at about 1900 hours in the evening occurring in Aberdeen Main Road in Aberdeen.  The defendant approached the victim from behind and snatched her necklace.  The necklace was valued at about $1,980.  The defendant made an escape.

3.  The 2nd Charge occurred on 9 July 2011 at 5.30 in the morning.  The victim was aged 67.  It was near the same location on Aberdeen Main Road.  The defendant approached the victim from behind and snatched her necklace with a pendant.  He fled from the scene.  The necklace and pendant were valued at $11,500. 

4.  The 3rd Charge occurred on 11 August 2011 at about 9.45 in the morning.  The victim who was aged 54 was walking along Aberdeen Main Road.  The defendant approached her from behind and snatched her necklace.  He made his escape.  The necklace was valued at about $6,000. 

5.  The 4th Charge is a charged as a robbery.  That occurred on 22 August 2011 at about 6.10 in the morning.  The victim was a 53 year old female who was walking along Aberdeen Main Road.  The defendant approached her from behind; held her clothes at the back of her neck.  She tried to turn around.  The defendant pushed at her back so she fell to the ground.  He snatched her necklace with a pendant and fled.  The necklace was valued at about $3,000 but was recovered.  The victim sustained swelling and tenderness at her right hand and an abrasion at her left hand.

6.  The 5th Charge occurred on 28 August 2011.  The defendant was caught as a result of a police operation.  At 0704 hours in the morning the victim, who was a 75 year old female, was walking along Aberdeen Main Road.  She was followed by the defendant.  The defendant took a mask from his left pocked.  He put it on.  He pushed the victim at the back with both hands and she fell to the floor.  He snatched the victim’s necklace valued at about $600 and fled. 

7.  The defendant was eventually apprehended by police.  Under caution, he admitted he had snatched necklaces from other women in that location.  The victim suffered an abrasion at her right hand.  The defendant made a subsequent video record.

8.  In respect to the first three charges he admitted that he had sold the stolen properties.  He had received a total of $12,800.  He admitted the other two charges.  He said that he targeted women or old ladies with necklaces who walked slowly and were easy targets.  He attributed his offences to money owed to finance companies and the living expenses of his two sons. 

9.  The defendant’s antecedents show that he is a man of clear record.  He is aged 35.  He was educated to Form 1 in Happy Valley.  He worked as a warehouse keeper and a vehicle attendant.  He lost his job in May 2011 and has been unemployed since then.  He is not a drug addict.  The defendant was married in 1999; separated from his wife in 2010.  He has two sons.  The eldest is aged 11 and is studying Primary 6.  The youngest is aged 3 and is at Kindergarten.  He has a father aged 80 and a mother aged 73.  They are retired fisher-folk and they live in Tin Wan in Aberdeen and prior to today the defendant was living with his parents, two sons and his elder sister in a flat in Tin Wan.

10.  The defendant has advanced some mitigation.  In respect of his children, I note that his younger son suffers from a motor neuron disease and is receiving special therapy at the Tang Shiu Kin Clinic. His commission of the offences is related to his dismissal from his job in May 2011.  The defendant committed these offences to obtain money.  He is supported by his family.  He is said to be remorseful.  On apprehension he cooperated with the police and admitted the offences.  He fully disclosed his involvement. 

11.  As far as the offences are concerned it is said of the first three offences that they are snatching type offences.  In respect of the robberies that no weapons had been used and there were no substantial injuries and two of the necklaces were recovered. 

12.  The perhaps unusual feature of the case is the defendant’s age and the fact that he is of clear record.  It would be right, as defence counsel says, to characterise these offences as being out of character. It is unusual to see a man involve himself in these kind of offences at his age without some previous history of criminality.  And, insofar as it is possible to do so the defendant must be given some credit for the fact that he is of clear record. 

13.  What must be noted is the defendant was preying upon women in Aberdeen Main Road in Aberdeen choosing people he perceived to be vulnerable.  To a certain extent one can say that people must have been terrorised by this behaviour.  The location of these offences and the kind of victims the defendant chose, are aggravating factors, as is his method of committing these offences. 

14.  In the theft offences it involved snatching necklaces which are around people’s necks.  And, again, in respect of the robberies it involved the use of some degree of force, snatching the necklaces from around their necks and in respect to the final victim, from the neck of a lady who is 75 years old so there is only a limited extent to which the defendant’s clear record can assist him when he decides to commit offences of this nature.

15.  I must determine the appropriate starting point for sentence in respect of all of these offences and then consider the overall correct totality for sentence for this series of offences. 

16.  In respect of the first three offences these are snatching type thefts.  Normally a sentence of imprisonment with a starting point of between 12 and 15 months would be the appropriate sentence.  I will adopt a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment on each of the first three offences.  The defendant is entitled to one-third discount from the sentence which will lead to a sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd charges. 

17.  In respect to the 4th and 5th Charges, these are unarmed robberies.  The starting point for an unarmed robbery can range as high as 4 years’ imprisonment.  However starting points in the region of 2 years’ imprisonment have been adopted for snatching type robberies.  I have already said there is some aggravation in the nature of the way these offences were committed.  The victims were chosen on the basis of their vulnerability.  In the 4th and 5th offences, they are pushed to the ground before the necklaces are taken from around their throats. 

18.  I consider that in each of these offences a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment or 36 months’ imprisonment is the correct starting point.  The defendant is entitled to one-third discount from that sentence.  That leads to a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment or 24 months’ imprisonment on each of Charges 4 and 5.

19.  All the offences were committed on separate days in July and August.  They could all be served consecutively.  Nevertheless, I must consider and arrive at the correct overall totality for these sentences. I have considered the overall totality and I have considered the overall total sentence should amount to 44 months’ imprisonment. 

20.  I will achieve that as follows; the 1st and 2nd offences will be served concurrently to each other.  The 3rd offence will be served consecutively to the 1st and 2nd offences and also the 4th offence.  The 4th and 5th offences will be served concurrently to each other but consecutively the 1st, 2nd and 3rd offences.  This leads to an overall total sentence of 44 months’ which would posit an overall starting point of 66 months’ imprisonment which I consider to be appropriate in this case so the eventual sentence is one of 44 months’ imprisonment.