COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of robbery before a magistrate on 12 December last year and he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. According to the prosecution’s allegation, it is alleged that on the 12th day of April 2024, he robbed a money exchange shop known as the Dor Fortune situated in How Ming Street in Kwun Tong and the total amount being robbed was cash in the sum of HK$172,877 and 7,400 renminbi.
According to the Summary of Facts to which he agreed at the time of the plea, at the material time which was about 1.10 pm on 12 April 2024, the defendant wore a mask, a face mask, and entered the money exchange shop known as Dor Fortune on the ground floor of an industrial building on How Ming Street, Kwun Tong. At that time, there was a male customer PW1 sitting at the counter of the shop waiting to remit a sum of money, and there were also two other female staff members of the shop working therein.
After entering the shop, the defendant took out an air gun from his rucksack and pointed the air gun at the back of the male customer. He declared robbery and demanded the female staff not to press the report button. The staff quickly handed over the banknotes placed at the counter to the defendant, and this amount was later confirmed to be the amount particularised in the charge.
The defendant continued to point the air gun at the male customer’s back while putting the banknotes into his rucksack. Then he demanded the male customer to stand up and open the door for him, and he fled from the shop immediately.
The course of the robbery was fully captured by the CCTV in the shop and it lasted around one minute.
Upon police investigation and review of the relevant CCTV recordings, it was revealed that he arrived at Kwun Tong via MTR around 10.15 am that day, and that between 11 am and 11.36 am he went to four different money exchange shops in the area in Kwun Tong. He once entered the Dor Fortune at about 1126 hours and made certain enquiries with the staff member. Shortly after the robbery he boarded a taxi to go to Shek Kip Mei area where he met two persons and handed over an amount of cash, then he departed Hong Kong for Macau and returned to Hong Kong in the early hours of 13 April 2024.
The police soon confirmed the identity of the defendant, and he was arrested by the police at about 1.46 am on 14 April 2024 outside his residence. He admitted under caution that he committed the robbery with an air gun because he was in debt.
In the subsequent video-recorded interview, he stated that he was an insurance agent and he incurred a huge debt from gambling in Macau. He then thought of committing robbery using an air gun that he previously bought for war games. On the material day, he took the air gun to the shop and he robbed an amount of cash by threatening to shoot a male customer with the air gun. At that time, he did not know the exact amount of cash that he robbed from the shop.
After the robbery, he went to Shek Kip Mei to meet two of his MPF clients to whom he owed a debt. He then gave the two persons an amount of cash that he robbed from the shop as repayment but he did not tell them that the money was stolen. He had changed his clothes after the robbery so as to avoid being identified. He discarded the air gun after the incident. Then he travelled to Macau to repay his gambling debt with the stolen money, and he returned to Hong Kong after he had lost all the money from gambling.
Upon search of his residence, the police found the packaging of a pistol gun which the defendant admitted to be the packaging of the air gun that he used in the incident.
He now accepts and admits that at the material time, he robbed the staff members of Dor Fortune of cash in the sum of HK$172,877 and renminbi 7,400.
The defendant is now 28 years of age and he is single. He is of clear record at the time of the offence. He is a university graduate with a degree in advertising and corporate communication. Upon graduation, he set up an advertisement designing company which ended up losing all the money he invested. He then worked as an insurance agent and also a freelance advertisement designer, as he was planning to get married.
In mitigation, counsel Mr Michael Leung informed me that his father has been suffering from prostate cancer and that he obtained a loan of $30,000 from an aged couple who were his clients for the medical expenses. However, because of COVID, his business as an insurance agent dropped sharply and he was idle at home. At that time he picked up online betting. As a result he lost all the money within just a few months.
Counsel stated that on the day before the offence he went to Macau to gamble in a casino. However he lost money and he was lured to borrow money from the loan shark. Counsel said that by the time of the offence, he owed a total of around $200,000 debt to the loan shark and he was extremely depressed. He had thought about committing suicide but considered that even if he died, the loan shark would not let go of the debt and his parents would suffer. As a result he turned to committing the robbery with the air gun.
Counsel in submission said that the air gun was unloaded at the time of the robbery, and no one was hurt in the robbery. Counsel said before the robbery he had entered the shop a few times to make enquiries with the staff members because he was terrified to death and did not have the audacity to rob. Then he received a phone call from the creditor which became the last straw.
After obtaining the money from the robbery, he first went to repay the aged couple whom he owed the medical expenses, then he went to Macau to repay the loan shark. However he was lured to borrow again and naively thought that if he could win, he could find a way to return money to the exchange shop.
Upon my inquiries, counsel said that if he could win money from the gambling in Macau, then he would consider surrendering himself and repay the exchange shop. However he failed again in his gambling and he returned to Hong Kong after losing all the money.
Counsel pointed out that he has indicated his plea in the first opportunity and the offence was completely out of his character. Counsel urged his court to take into account all the circumstances especially his background, to adopt a starting point that is slightly lower than 12 years’ imprisonment and to give him the one-third discount.
Counsel also in mitigation submitted a total of six mitigation letters. The first letter was written by the defendant himself, saying that he was regretful about what he had done and he was willing to bear his responsibilities. There is also a letter prepared by his parents saying that before the incident he had been participating in various community services, and that he was a supporter of the environment before the offence.
There is also a letter prepared by his girlfriend who worked in Po Leung Kuk. The girlfriend said that the defendant also engaged in volunteer work to help out the children or the small kids in Po Leung Kuk, taking them to Disneyland or different places to play and taking them out for lunch. She said that the defendant was a responsible person and he was under great pressure when he was heavily in debt with gambling. She also pleaded for leniency from this court.
There is a letter prepared by his friend who said that the defendant had become addicted to online gambling, that the defendant had previously borrowed $3,000 from him because of the debt, however the defendant responsibly repaid the whole debt to him.
There is a letter prepared by a counsellor for gambling. Apparently this counsellor, Mr Chan, started to contact the defendant since March 2024. However the defendant claimed that he was busy with his work to obtain money for the repayment, so he had never met Mr Chan face to face but instead he only communicated with Mr Chan by phone throughout the months of March and April.
Pausing here, I was informed by counsel that his business dropped sharply as an insurance agent and that was why he resorted to online gambling. That was in contradiction with what he had told the counsellor, that he was busy with his job and he was unable to meet him.
Lastly there was a letter from a pastor who usually visited the Correctional Services Department. The pastor said that the defendant was regretful about what he had done and pleaded for leniency as well.
The use of firearms or indeed imitation firearms in a robbery, no matter it is real or imitation, usually generates considerable fear in its victims. Also it would increase the danger of law enforcement officers resorting to their own firearms, thus placing members of the public at risk.
In the case of HKSAR v Pau Lai Sing [2010] 3 HKLRD 233, the Court of Appeal stated at paragraphs 18 and 19 that:
“Robberies of banks, jewellery shops and other establishments in possession of large amounts of cash or valuable items are very serious offences and must be deterred as such establishments offer a great temptation to potential robbers and will be otherwise often targeted.
Robberies involving the use of a firearm or an imitation firearm are particularly hideous. When law enforcement officers are alerted, they would not be able to tell if the firearm used by the robbers is real or just an imitation, and they might have to resort to their own, thus exposing the public to grave danger.”
And, in this case the Court of Appeal also pointed out that for a robbery upon a bank or a jewellery shop or similar shop with the use of an imitation firearm, the normal starting point should be one of 12 to 15 years which took into account the important aggravating feature that the use of an imitation firearm might attract law enforcement officers to resort to and use their own weapons, thus exposing the public to grave danger.
In this particular case, I have taken into account the fact that at the material time he used a toy gun to point at the back of the male customer, that he continued to point the air gun at the customer’s back when he was grabbing the money, and he also threatened that customer to open the shop’s door for him before he fled from the shop.
Counsel informed me that indeed the toy gun was unloaded at the time. However I do not consider this to be any material mitigating factor because the toy gun or air pistol, whether it was an imitation or a real firearm or not was unknown to the staff member and the customer at the time, and it would be unknown to any police officers who came to the scene if they were alerted at the material time. The fact that it was unloaded was actually unknown to whoever was put under the threat of having a gun pointed at his back.
I have taken into account the fact that this robbery was committed on the exchange shop and a total of around or more than HK$180,000 worth of cash was being stolen. I also take into account the fact that he was the only person who committed the robbery instead of doing it together with other persons, and nobody was injured in the incident. And, of course, I take into account the fact that it was a brief robbery that lasted for about one minute at the material time. I also take into account the fact that he pleaded guilty at the very first opportunity, and the regret that was expressed in the mitigating letters that were submitted.
Having considered all the circumstances, I consider the appropriate starting point for this robbery should be one of 12 years’ imprisonment. And, because of his early plea of guilty and his remorse, he is entitled to the full one-third discount. So after the discount he is sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment.
I take into account the fact that he was a person of previous good character, even though this may not be counted as a very significant mitigating factor. However it appears that he had been engaged in some volunteer work to help out others in his previous days, and indeed at the material time he was seeking counselling from counsellors for his gambling problem. So he realised his problem but still he foolishly resorted to committing the robbery because of the huge debt that he owed.
On his particular personal circumstances, I am willing to exercise my discretion to give him a further discount of 2 more months. So he is sentenced to a total of 7 years and 10 months’ imprisonment for the offence.