HKSAR v. YU CHUN KIT

DCCC274/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 274 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  In these proceedings the defendant Yu Chun-kit faced two counts of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210. He was convicted upon his plea and admission of facts.

2.  The facts reveal that both robberies took place on 31 December 2011 near Tai Po Waterfront Park Spiral Lookout Tower when at around 1 pm two ladies were practising Tai-chi. They left their handbags near them on the ground.  Suddenly someone pushed them from behind, causing them to fall onto the ground.  They then saw three males taking away their handbags fleeing to the direction of Tai Po Industrial Estate.  They gave chase to them, while shouting for help at the same time.  One of them approached a passer-by requesting the same to make a report for them. 

3.  The three males ran into a construction site and shortly afterwards, they ran out again.  One of the males(the defendant) was intercepted at the entrance of the construction site.  The handbags, both containing personal properties, were subsequently recovered in the vicinity of the construction site. Both victims sustained minor injuries.  They were treated and discharged by the hospital on the same day.

4.  Under caution the defendant admitted that he, together with two friends, pushed the two victims and ran away with the handbags. 

5.  This is obviously a very serious offence.   The maximum sentence for this offence is imprisonment for life.  Had the defendant been of age the court would have no choice but to consider a substantial period of imprisonment.  It is also an excepted offence for a person over 21; meaning that such sentences cannot be suspended. 

6.  For  a robbery where no weapon had been used, there is very clear authority to the effect that the proper sentence should be up to 4 years.  The present case is not the most serious of all robberies but the fact that it happened in a public park in broad daylight and the defendant had acted together with two others in the commission of the offence, and that the victim has suffered some form of injury are aggravating factors.

7.  At the time of the offence the defendant was aged 19. He had a clear record.  The prosecution has advised this court that he has given a witness statement which would be used in the prosecution of the third culprit. 

8.  The probation officer’s report has set out the full background of the defendant.  I note that the defendant’s past behaviour had been stable and he has a good work track record.  The probation officer is of the view that a short period of residential training sufficient to help bringing him back to the right track.  The same view was shared by the representative for the Commissioner of Correctional Services and pointed out that since he was mentally fit and physically fit for detention in the Detention Centre or Training Centre and that he is more suitable to put in a Detention Centre. The Detention Centre is designed to provide a sharp, short treatment followed by a term of 2 years supervision.

9.  Having considered the facts of the case, the background of the defendant and, in particular, the fact that he had assisted the police in the investigation of this case, I consider a rehabilitative approach for sentencing appropriate.  I do not consider a term of imprisonment beneficial to the society or to the defendant himself. 

10.  I take the view that in the case of the defendant, a Detention Centre order will strike a right balance between the expectation of the society and the rehabilitation need of the defendant, accordingly I make a Detention Centre Order for the defendant.