HKSAR v. CHOW CHI HO

DCCC 1482/2024

[2026] HKDC 742

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1482 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Robbery". He robbed a taxi driver of $3,000 in cash and a car camera in the early hours without using any weapons or actual force.

Summary of Facts

2.  About 2:35 a.m. on 26 July 2024, at the taxi stand of Po Tat Estate, Sau Mau Ping, the defendant boarded a taxi (NM8446; "the Taxi")  driven by Mr. Lau (PW1).  He instructed PW1 to drive into Po Tat Estate and to stop outside the refuse collection point of Tat Chui House.

3.  When the Taxi came to a stop, the defendant told PW1 to turn off his mobile phone and to take out everything.  He also asked PW1 to take out the "company's profits" (公數 in Punti).  The defendant said that there were 2 vehicles waiting up there somewhere because PW1's boss had offended someone.  PW1 had no idea what the defendant was talking about.  He asked the defendant if it was a robbery.  The defendant did not answer directly but abruptly accused PW1 of selling dangerous drugs, threatening to call the police and have the Taxi searched.

4.  The defendant then pointed at a hard pack of cigarettes placed on the dashboard and asked PW1 what was inside.  PW1 said he had $500 in the cigarette box.  The defendant repeatedly told PW1 to open the cigarette

box and claimed that he had "weapons" (架生 in Punti). He then snatched the cigarette box claiming that he wanted to see if there were dangerous drugs inside. The defendant opened the cigarette box and took away the $500 without returning the cigarette box to PW1.

5.  The defendant once again asked PW1 for the "company's profits".  PW1 did not understand what "company's profits" meant.  He believed that the defendant was robbing him and wanted more money.  Thus, he took out $2,500 cash from his shirt pocket.  The defendant snatched the cash at once.  He then asked PW1 to remove the dash cam and hand it over to him.  PW1 complied.

6.  Finally, the defendant asked PW1 to drive into Po Tat Estate and stop outside the carpark.  Before alighting, the defendant paid for his taxi fare with a $100 note.  The metre showed a fare of $38.4.  The defendant asked PW1 to give him $60 as change.  He then alighted from the Taxi and walked into the carpark.

7.  PW1 did not sustain any injuries; however, the defendant led PW1 to believe that he was subjected to force by mentioning "other vehicles" and "weapons" before taking the $500 from the cigarette box.  According to PW1, before taking the $2,500 and the dash cam, the defendant repeatedly mentioned "weapons" and "the 2 vehicles waiting up there somewhere", which led PW1 to believe that he was being subjected to force in order for the defendant to steal from him.

8.  PW1 reported the matter to the police at Sau Mau Ping Police Station shortly afterwards.  About 6:55 a.m. on the same day, the defendant was arrested in the lift lobby of Tat Chui House for "Robbery".

9.  Even though the Taxi's dash cam was taken by the defendant, footage of the first 6 minutes of the incident on board was uploaded to cloud storage.  Both PW1 and the defendant as well as their conversation were captured in the footage.

10.  The defendant now admits that he robbed PW1 of $3,000 in cash and a car camera (valued at $380).

Mitigation & Sentence

11.  The defendant is 36 and has 10 conviction records, which included 4 violence-related offences, 3 "Robbery" offences, 4 dishonesty-related offences and 2 "simple possession" offences.  Defence counsel Mr. Siu informed me that the defendant is single and resides with his mother and elder sister at Po Tat Estate.  He was unemployed at the time of the present offence.

12.  In mitigation, Mr. Siu submitted that the defendant acted alone.  He did not carry or display any weapons.  He did not directly ask PW1 for money or threaten him with violence. Furthermore, the defendant has arranged for full compensation (in the sum of $3,380)  to be made to PW1 before sentence. 

13.  In The Queen v Tran Van Anh [1993] 2 HKCLR 122, the Court of Appeal held "Taxi drivers, as we have frequently observed, are particularly vulnerable to robbery, especially those who ply for hire late at night or in the early hours of the morning or who pick up or drop passengers in quiet locations." [1]

14.  A clear message must be conveyed to the general public that taxi robbery is a serious offence and that the offenders would most certainly be punished by long-term imprisonment[2].

15.  In the present case, the defendant acted alone and did not display any weapons or use actual force.  He robbed PW1 in a peculiar way.  After watching the dash cam footage in open court, I asked Mr. Siu if he had any instructions regarding the reasons for the defendant's unorthodox method of robbing someone.  Mr. Siu informed me that the defendant believed PW1 was driving under the influence of dangerous drugs.  He seized the opportunity to see if he could take advantage of PW1.  He therefore made up the story of PW1's boss having offended someone.  Mr. Siu further explained that since the defendant has prior similar convictions, he deliberately chose not to use phrases like "Give me all your money".  The defendant believed that after PW1 recounted the story to the police, it would sound ridiculous.

16.  The defendant is no doubt a smart person and seems to have some knowledge of criminal law.  It would have been beneficial for both him and society if he could apply his wit in more meaningful ways.  I consider a starting point of 4.5 years' imprisonment appropriate in the present case.  This is the defendant's 4^th conviction for robbery.  I would raise the starting point to 5 years' imprisonment.  With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 40 months.  For compensation, I grant a discount of 2 months.  Apart from these 2 reasons, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction.  I sentence the defendant to 38 months' imprisonment.