COURT: The defendants have pleaded guilty to one count of robbery on 7 April 2021 in Yau Ma Tei and that they robbed the victim of cash HK$16 million. They pleaded guilty in the lower court and were committed to this court for sentence.
On the occasion when they first appeared before me on 11 September, they confirmed their pleas and the matter was adjourned to today because of certain formalities that had to be sorted out amongst counsel for the prosecution and the defence.
The facts of the case were that on the day of the robbery, the victim was a businessman in the jewellery, alcohol and tobacco business in the mainland. And he did keep a substantial amount of cash at his home and often used the services of money service operators in Hong Kong to remit monies back to the mainland and his practice was that each time he would bring a large amount of cash in order to do so.
And on 7 April 2021, the victim decided to remit HK$16 million back to the mainland. He therefore put the money into two black rucksacks and each rucksack contained $8 million. Then he was driven by his driver at about 1.06 pm to go to a money service operator in Prince Edward Road.
At about 1.12 pm on the same day, when the vehicle was driven along Hoi Po Road near the junction of Jordan Road, it was bumped by another private vehicle which is, for the sake of brevity, is referred to as vehicle 2 bearing a false registration plate XB2375 from behind. The vehicle in which the victim was travelling thus lost control and crashed into a nearby crash barrier and then broke down.
At that time, the three defendants emerged from vehicle 2 and broke the driver’s window of the victim’s vehicle with a two-feet long hammer. At the same time, one of these three defendants tried to use the hammer to hit the head of the driver who used his arms to protect his head. And at the same time, one of the three defendants took away the dash camera which was installed at the front of the driver’s seat.
While the driver was being attacked, the remaining two defendants pulled open the left rear passengers’ door and one of them was carrying a two-feet long knife and pointed it at the victim and his assistant. They then took away the two rucksacks with the cash in it. Then all three ran back to vehicle 2 and the driver who was inside vehicle 2 and remains a wanted person then drove the vehicle away.
The matter was reported to the police. Although there were no CCTV in operation at the location of the robbery, the police by meticulous examination of the CCTV evidence regarding the route of vehicle 2 found that on 7 April 2021, between 12.11 pm and 12.14 pm, vehicle 2 originally bore the registration plate NU6689.
They met up with another private vehicle bearing registration plate WX6131 which, for the sake of brevity, is referred to as vehicle 3 at Hing Wah Street West. The 1st defendant then fixed the false plate on vehicle 2 and another false plate on vehicle 3. And there were two men, the wanted person 1 and wanted person 2 were the driver of vehicles 2 and 3 at the material time. The three defendants were inside vehicle 2.
Then from the CCTV at about 1.07 pm and 1.11 pm, vehicle 2 was seen waiting outside W Hotel and soon after, the victim’s vehicle left his residence, vehicle 2 also left W Hotel.
Then between 1.15 pm and 1.17 pm, vehicle 2 met vehicle 3 at Hing Wah Street West and the three defendants were still inside vehicle 2. The 1st defendant got out of vehicle 2 and took out two rucksacks from vehicle 2 and threw them into vehicle 3 before vehicle 3 left the scene. At the same time, the 2nd and 3rd defendants removed the false plate from vehicle 2 and reaffixed the original plate back on the vehicle 2 again. And then all three defendants got into vehicle 2 and left the scene.
Further evidence from CCTV recordings reveal that on 8 April, the 1st defendant had driven vehicle 3 and took the 2nd defendant to Paradise Square in Mong Kok where they bought a Rolex Daytona watch at the cost of $148,800. And the 1st defendant made the payment by cash. Before they entered the shop, they were requested to take off their masks for security check and thus their faces were captured on the CCTV.
On 9 April 2021, the 1st defendant drove vehicle 3 to Paradise Square again. He met up with the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the shopping mall and they bought a Rolex Daytona watch for 128,000 from another watch shop which the 1st defendant paid for in cash.
On 15 April 2021, the 1st defendant was arrested. Upon arrest, the 1st defendant was found in possession of, amongst other things, a gold Rolex watch and two Apple iPhones and a black silver Benz vehicle key.
Upon a house search of the 1st defendant’s two residences, jewellery was also found in his home and also watches, Rolex watches, amongst other things.
The 2nd defendant was also arrested on 15 April and under caution, he said it was the 1st defendant who asked him to participate in the incident and to act as a lookout and to hit people. He claimed that he did not take any money although he was present in the robbery. Upon a house search, found in his home was a black/gold Rolex Daytona watch, amongst other things. And he said that his reward was a watch, the Daytona Rolex watch which was bought in Mong Kok for 149,800.
D3 was also arrested on the same day. And he claimed under caution, he was only inside vehicle 2 and did not participate. However, a search of his residence found, amongst other things, Rolex watches, Rolex watch packaging and $100,000 cash.
On 21 April, vehicle 3 was found in Cheung Sai Wan and it had been burnt.
Now, these facts I have spent some time in noting are very serious. It involves a very well planned conspiracy amongst the robbers and the wanted persons for not only was the planning well done, the preparation was also well done because what happened was they had vehicles which had license plates changed.
They lay in wait for the victim to emerge from his residence. It was obviously their plan to bump into the victim’s vehicle, causing the vehicle to stop and break down so that they can then overpower the victim and his assistant inside the vehicle in order to get the rucksacks of money.
I have been provided by all defence counsel with mitigation submissions, pointing out that each of them, although they had previous convictions, this is the first time that they had been involved in a robbery. And in the case of the 1st accused, I am asked to consider the family background. I must put on record that family backgrounds pale into insignificance in light of the serious nature of this offence.
There has been many robberies in Hong Kong and some of them and only some of them are as well planned as this. People in Hong Kong should be able to go about their regular business without the threat of having their wealth, hard-earned cash, robbed from them. And this is a case that is serious and thus call for a heavy sentence in order to reflect the facts in this case.
Counsel have submitted to me cases where different sentences have been given in robberies, some of them said to be similar. But in my view, each case is very different and it is on these very different facts that is why there is no sentencing guidelines for robbery. And as has been said in the past by the Court of Appeal, sentencing is an art. The sentencing judge has to take into account the specific facts pertaining to the case in front of him or her. Past cases are for reference only and in this case, I consider that the facts are so serious that it would merit a starting point sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment.
And because of their early plea, each of them are entitled to the one-third discount and therefore that will bring the sentence down to one of 8 years’ imprisonment.
Now, I see no difference in the roles of each defendant and whether one was a lookout or whether one was actually the one who broke the window and who took the rucksack, they were all in it, they were performing different roles and therefore each of them are therefore sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment.