COURT: Both accused had pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to one count of robbery. And the particulars of offence are that they, together with four other persons, robbed a jewellery shop in Yau Ma Tei of 584 pieces of jewellery.
The facts are that on the day of 23 December 2019, the two defendants together with four others entered the shop, the Lee Hing Goldsmith and Jewellery shop, and a knife was pointed at the owner of the shop. And then the six masked males then proceeded to smash the glass display cases and grab the gold ornaments inside. The robbery lasted about a minute and then they fled towards the Tsim Sha Tsui area.
None of the owners, that is the two owners of the shop had suffered any injury. However, the knife was displayed and pointed at one of the owners and in fact, during the course of the robbery, the lady owner as can be seen on the CCTV was pushed to the floor by the 1st accused.
A total of 584 pieces of gold ornaments was stolen. The estimated value was about $1,776,754.
So far only, I am told, one bracelet had been recovered. When the robbers fled, a knife was found at the scene together with a hammer and a black bag, inside of which was another knife. After receiving the report from the shop owners, the police then started their investigation and they found in an alley of a nearby estate two pairs of gloves and three masks.
Upon a subsequent examination, the 1st defendant’s DNA was found on the broken glass of the shop and the 2nd defendant’s DNA was found on a pair of gloves and the facial mask containing blood stains which was seized at the alley next to Prosperous Garden.
Subsequently, on 25 and 27 February 2020, both the 1st and 2nd defendant were arrested by the police respectively. In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the 1st defendant acknowledged that he knew the 2nd defendant and he gave an account about the robbery. And he admitted his hand was cut by the broken glass of the showcase and he also identified that he was one of males captured on the CCTV.
The 2nd accused in the video-recorded interview also gave an account about the robbery and how he was given a face mask and a pair of gloves before going to the shop. And he said that after they left, the mask was thrown away and the gloves at a rear lane and he also confirmed that he was one of the male persons captured on the CCTV.
So this was a daytime robbery in a shop which was situated in a busy street in Yau Ma Tei and although the planning cannot be deemed very sophisticated, nevertheless there was some degree of planning. The robbery, no doubt, caused great alarm to both shop owners who were inside the shop at the time.
Robbery of this nature, especially on small shopkeepers, are very serious because they are running a small business, the fact is they are not as well protected by security as some of the larger establishments. So it makes them very vulnerable to being robbed.
Mr Boyton, on behalf of the 1st accused, have submitted in mitigation that the 1st accused has a clear record and that he has pleaded guilty. And most importantly, he also has given useful information to the police resulting in the arrest and prosecution of one of the accomplices. That person, in fact has not been sentenced, although he has pleaded guilty and that person has also submitted a non-prejudicial statement and so his sentence will be pending.
However, as Mr Boyton pointed out, he has not only provided a statement to the police. He has also attended an identification parade and I am informed that the police considered that the four non-prejudicial statements had evidential value and contributed to the apprehension of the two males, one of whom had already been sentenced by a Deputy High Court Judge.
Now, no doubt, as I have said the robbery is not a minor one, it is not a common street robbery. The defendant is also a Form 8 holder. This robbery was well planned, well planned in the sense of not a sophisticated plan, but well planned in that there was six robbers who entered the shop armed with knives and hammers and are masked and gloved. And of course, as Mr Boyton pointed out, Mo Kwong Sang is the case for robberies where suggested guidelines for sentencing as always been followed.
As far as this case is concerned, it suggests a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment for an armed robbery where weapons were displayed to the victim. Then there also involves an invasion of private premises and this was indeed a private premise although doing business. So Mr Boyton is correct that that is an aggravating factor, increasing the sentence to 6 years. There is also the aggravation of having multiple robbers together and that would increase the sentence by a year.
And the fact is that the 1st defendant is a Form 8 holder and I am grateful to Mr Sherry for the case of HKSAR v Singh Gursevak [2019] 2 HKLRD 274. Now, it is at paragraph 47 to 49, where the Court of Appeal said this:
“That robbery is a very serious offence is indisputable. That this particular manifestation of it was particularly serious is also indisputable. So, what then of the impact of it on Hong Kong and its residents?”
Paragraph 48:
“In the present case, the impact on the community is considerable. It goes well beyond the victim and his family and into the wider Hong Kong community. It affects people’s sense of security, especially those who are engaged in businesses similar to the victim’s. It affects the community’s attitudes to people of different ethnicities as they live side by side with them in a multicultural community. It creates anxiety and distrust within a community.
The reputational damage to a city which promotes itself as a tourist destination is obvious. But Hong Kong is more than just a city to visit. It is a home to many in the international business community and it seeks to attract more international businesses to set up here. In order to do that, it portrays itself as a safe city for people in which to do business and go about their daily lives. Nothing undermines that perception more than violent street crime.”
So really in sentencing, in considering the range of sentencing, I think it is very important for the sentencing court to consider the impact of this crime on the community. The fact of the matter is that as Form 8 holders, you are a visitor here allowed to live normally, freely and to respect the laws of this place.
Now, in committing serious offence of this nature, you had betrayed the trust of the community. So therefore, I consider that an appropriate starting point in this robbery is 7 years. However, I will add to it, the fact that the 1st defendant is a Form 8 holder and increase it by 2 years, and also the number of people involved in this robbery of six persons, I increase it by 1 year. So that will bring the sentence to 10 years’ imprisonment.
Now, I appreciate that the defendant has given constructive and useful assistance to the authorities resulting in the arrest of two persons who has pleaded guilty. And I therefore will give him the 50 per cent discount and so he will go to prison for 5 years.
Now, in relation to the 2nd defendant, what I have said in relation to the seriousness of the robbery also apply to him. The fact that he is also a Form 8 holder is also a major factor in the consideration of sentence. What I have said in relation to Form 8 holders and the betrayal of the trust of the community also applies equally to him. Also, the fact is that the robbery was committed by more than one person, there was altogether six persons that I will increase the starting point of 7 years by 1 year and for being a Form 8 holder, 2 years. So that will give a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.
Now, in relation to the assistance to the authorities. Of course the 2nd accused, as Mr Sherry pointed out, has given a non-prejudicial statement, telling in detail an account of the robbery and of the participants involved.
However, the information he has given has served no useful purpose as far as the police were concerned. But of course, as Mr Sherry says he deserves some recognition for his display of willingness to assist the authorities.
So having considered it I will reduce the 10 years by 38 per cent and therefore he is sentenced to prison for 6 years and 2 months.