|
DCCC 218/2013
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 218 OF 2013
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
Yeung Chi-chiu, Nicky |
|
----------------------
| Before: |
HH Judge Tallentire |
| Date: |
24 July 2013 at 2.56 pm |
| Present: |
Ms Janice Cheuk, PP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr Kwan Hang-fan, Jasper, instructed by Alan Ho & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant |
| Offence: |
Attempted robbery (企圖搶劫罪) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. Defendant, you are convicted after trial of a single offence of attempted robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.
2. The facts have been dealt with at length in my verdict, I do not intend to repeat them save to say it was a rather inept, almost farcical, scenario. You threw baby powder in the victim’s face, told him not to struggle and, in my finding, you attempted to grab the bag of mobile phones he carried. In saying that I bear in mind that your admission was to trying to grab the phone he was holding in his hand. However, I do accept the victim’s version.
3. PW1 pushed you to the ground whereupon you fled without offering further violence.
4. You admitted to two previous convictions, one of which involved dishonesty and this was of some age.
5. After convicting you and hearing briefly from Mr Kwan, I decided to call for a probation officer’s background report. This was to assist me in the sentencing process and to possibly assist you also. However, you have refused to co-operate with the probation officer and so no report has been prepared. I will refer again to that matter.
6. Today, on your behalf, Mr Kwan presented mitigation. First, he explained to me that your lack of co-operation with the probation officer was due to your wish to avoid a waste of public money and that you were not requesting any further adjournment for that purpose.
7. You are 36 years of age, married with three children. Mr Kwan submitted that you are indeed a good father and husband. After being in regular employment for some time, you gave up that employment opting for part-time driving to care for your wife who unfortunately suffered from depression and I believe still does suffer from depression. The family now has to rely on public assistance.
8. Mr Kwan told me that your wife, sister and children had come to court to support you. He submitted that on the basis of the admission you made, your intent was to snatch the mobile phone in order to sell it to buy Christmas presents for your children showing that you are a caring father. There was no injury to the victim, only powder thrown in his face and nothing was in fact taken.
9. Two letters of support were read to the court.
10. Mr Kwan also confirmed that you yourself suffered from depression after the onset of your wife’s condition and now are receiving out-patient treatment. He asked me for leniency submitting that the only violence was throwing of the baby powder and that the intent was to snatch one phone as per your admission.
11. I turn now to the sentence. Attempted robbery is a serious matter. However, in this case there is much mitigation.
12. You are a man with a criminal record, but that criminal record is a very light one. It is many years since you are convicted of a crime of dishonesty. Whilst this is only on instructions to counsel, I am satisfied that you are a good family man. It is unfortunate that your refusal to co-operate with the probation service was not able to give independent confirmation of this.
13. I note also that initially you were very co-operative, making comprehensive and repeated admissions of the commission of the offence to the police. Indeed given the nature and the comprehensive nature of these admissions, it is a pity that you chose to exercise your undoubted right to maintain your plea of not guilty thereby losing the substantial discount I could have given you from sentence.
14. As I have said, the offence itself was almost farcical. The violence was only minimal, using the baby powder which you threw in the face of the victim. However, I accept, and this must have been the case, that initially the victim must have felt some fear and apprehension in having powder thrown in his face until he realized it was harmless. You offered no further violence at all. The victim resisted by holding onto the bag, pushed you over and you ran away. It is self-evident therefore that the victim suffered no injury. He lost nothing, and you acted alone.
15. As attempted robberies go, this is at the very lowest level. It seems to me that this is technically an attempted robbery but more akin to a snatching. I am sure Mr Kwan will have explained to you the usual tariff for this type of offence. However, because of these extreme mitigating factors, I do find that it should not be dealt with within that tariff. In all the circumstances, you will go to prison for 30 months.
|