HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI WING

HCCC366/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 366 OF 2009

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: This defendant pleaded guilty at committal on 6 November to one count of robbery. Today he confirmed that plea and confirmed also the facts that he admitted at committal.

  The defendant robbed a female staff member of a vegetable stall in Sheung Shui who was following her usual procedure of travelling to Yuen Long to hand the takings for that day to the proprietor of the stall. She was carrying $16,400 in a specially marked plastic bag; the facts say $16,500 in fact.

  On arrival at Yuen Long the victim went to a car park from where she telephoned the domestic helper of the proprietor. As she waited, the defendant approached her from behind and hit her on the head with what the victim later described as a hard rock-like object and tried to snatch the money. The victim resisted, there was a brief struggle and the defendant twisted the victim's finger so that she released the bag. He took the money and fled.

  The victim recognised the defendant as a man with whom she had worked at the vegetable stall for a year or so some 18 months previously. When the proprietor's domestic helper arrived, a report was made to the police. The proprietor gave personal details of the defendant to the police after checking staff records. The defendant was familiar with the operation of the stall.

  The victim complained of scalp pain and was examined medically. There was no neurovascular deficit. She had a haematoma over the left parietal region and complained of tenderness in that area. A skull X-ray showed no fracture.

  Later, the police contacted the defendant by telephone. He denied anything to do with the robbery and declined to help police investigations at that stage. He was intercepted and arrested later but claimed he had been in a cyber café all that day until 2200 hours.

  Subsequently in a Video Interview he admitted details of the offence. He said he had used a brick to attack the victim. He admitted knowing that she was responsible for the daily delivery of the takings. He said he had used some of the money to repay a creditor, whom he declined to name. The police found $13,840 in a marked red bag when they searched the defendant's bedroom. At a later Identification Parade he was identified by the victim.

  The defendant is aged 35. He has a clear record. He was educated to form 3 level in Hong Kong and worked as a casual worker. He had worked for the vegetable stall for about one‑and‑a‑half years earning $12,000 a month. He worked as a casual worker thereafter at the airport for a short period but the company folded and he was unemployed.

  By way of explanation I was advised that he owed $500,000 to a loan shark. He was unemployed and desperate to pay off the daily interest and that is the reason for this offence. He was the sixth of seven siblings but the only one living at home with his elderly parents. A letter was produced from the defendant stating that he realised that this was a very serious offence and asking the court to be lenient in sentencing. There is also a letter from his parents, again asking for leniency.

  In sentencing, I take into account that this comes into the category of the “head-bashing” cases with a starting point of 8 years for sentence. I accept that there was not a great deal of planning in the offence. It appeared to be opportunistic. I also note that, fortunately, the victim was not harmed seriously, though it must have been a frightening and painful experience for her, and the majority of the money has been recovered.

  I take a starting point of 8 years in this case. The only real mitigation in this case is the plea of guilty. I give a full one-third discount for that plea and sentence the accused to 5 years and 4 months' imprisonment.