HKSAR v. WANG ZHONG PING

 DCCC1188/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1188 OF 2008

 ----------------------

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant has been convicted on his plea of one charge of robbery, committed on 6 May last year in the Tsuen Wan area, when he robbed Chan Siu-lay of $1,500 in cash, a necklace, mobile phone and an Octopus card.

2.  As revealed by the agreed facts, he attacked the victim, a lady, in an open area in the Tsuen Wan area in the early evening in question.  He approached her from behind, covered her mouth, pointed a 20 centimetres long knife at her, declared robbery and demanded that she hand over money to him.  He then snatched her necklace and mobile phone and she handed over the cash and her Octopus card.  The defendant then fled.  He later cashed in the Octopus card at a nearby railway station and received the refund of $60 on it.

3.  The defendant is 32 years old and he has a previous conviction for robbery, for which he was sentenced on 5 March 2002 to 36 months’ imprisonment.

4.  The defendant is a citizen and resident of the mainland.  On this occasion he was a two-way permit holder in Hong Kong. 

5.  The guidelines for sentencing laid down by the Court of Appeal in Mo Kwong Sang v R [1981] HKLR 610 still apply today.  The court stated that in an ordinary case of armed robbery in which the accused displays a knife or other dangerous weapon to the victim, a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment will normally be appropriate, and if there are aggravating features present, such as ill-treatment of the victim, or more than one person taking part, or a multiplicity of similar offences in the defendant’s background, then that suggested starting point should be increased appropriately.

6.  I can see no reason on all the facts of the present case, including everything that Mr Ho has said on behalf of the defendant, to depart from the guidelines, and I adopt a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment after trial. 

7.  I accept that the defendant was co-operative with the police, that he admitted the offence to the police after he had been apprehended by them, and also that he is remorseful for what he did. 

8.  The fact that the defendant was experiencing some financial difficulties at the time is of course no excuse or mitigation whatsoever for resorting to such a serious offence as robbery, especially involving the displaying of a dangerous weapon like a knife. 

9.  For his plea of guilty and his full co-operation with the authorities he is entitled to the full one-third discount, which discounts the starting point to 40 months’ imprisonment. 

10.  I can see no reason at all on all the facts before me to discount that sentence any further and the sentence I impose upon the defendant is 40 months’ imprisonment.