HKSAR v. CHAN KA WAI

DCCC 609/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL ACTION NO 609 OF 2013

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant, Mr Chan Ka Wai, pleaded guilty to one charge of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance. The particulars of the charge are as follows:-

“Chan Ka-wai, on the 17^th day of May 2013, at the rear lane, Saigon Street, near Wai Ching Street, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, together with another person unknown, robbed Lam Sze-chun of one smartphone, one wallet, one blood donor’s card, one bank card, 3 photos, one discount card, one name card, 4 game cards, 7 key rings, 4 keys, two student cards, one ocean park ticket, one key card, one octopus card and cash of $300 Hong Kong currency.”

2.  The defendant admitted that at 2245 hours on 17 May 2013, he along with another male robbed Mr Lam Sze Chun in Yau Ma Tei.  Some force was used.  In fact, Mr Lam vigorously defended his property and got into a fight with the defendant. The other male stole from Mr Lam his wallet during the skirmish between Mr Lam and the defendant.

3.  The defendant finally succeeded in grabbing Mr Lam’s telephone case and tried to flee.  Mr Lam gave chase and finally caught the defendant in a building on Battery Street.  Police arrived and the defendant was arrested.

4.  Most of Mr Lam’s property was recovered, save HK$300 cash and an octopus card.

5.  The defendant passed out after he was arrested and was sent to Kwong Wah Hospital.

6.  Mr Lam suffered very minor injuries.

7.  The defendant is a 30-year old man.  He is married but has since been separated from his wife.  He has 2 children, aged 9 and 7.  He received education up to Form 2.  Before this incident, he was working as a goods van driver earning about 6,000 per month.

8.  It is apparent from the defendant’s criminal record that he has committed a number of offences since he was about 16 years of age.

9.  In mitigation, Mr Yuen, learned counsel for the defendant, very correctly reminded me that I am dealing with a case of unarmed robbery.  Furthermore, this is not a case involving head-bashing.

10.  Lastly, the defendant pleaded guilty, and this reflects his remorse over what he did.

11.  I note that this case involves 2 robbers committing an offence at night. No weapon was used or brandished.  The robbery took place in a public place.  The violence used did not cause any serious injuries to Mr Lam.

12.  There is no “tariff” guidelines for the offence of unarmed robbery.  However, when determining the appropriate starting point for sentence, I bear in mind the judgments of the Court of Appeal in R v Yau Kwok Tung [1987] HKLR 782, HKSAR v Ting Chiu [2003] 3 HKLRD 378 as well as HKSAR v Ku Kwok Wai [2012] 4 HKLRD 563.

13.  In the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered by Roberts CJ in R v Yau Kwok Tung, a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment after trial for an offence of unarmed robbery was said to be at the “top end of the tariff”.

14.  I accept that the present case does not fall within the “top end” of the spectrum of this kind of offences.

15.  Having regard to all the circumstances of the present case and the mitigation most ably presented by Mr Yuen, I would adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.

16.  As the defendant has pleaded guilty to the charge, he is entitled to 1/3 discount.  This would bring the sentence to 2 years’ imprisonment.

17.  Defendant, Mr Chan, please stand up.  I sentence you to 2 years’ imprisonment.