CRIMINAL CASE NO. 356 OF 2011
COURT: This is a very nasty robbery.
Shortly after 2.15 am on 18 November 2010, three robbers (the two defendants, with one Lau Hung) broke into the Bollinger family residence situated at No. 8 Mount Austin Road, The Peak.
Their intrusion woke up the family: first, the mother‑in‑law of Mr Bollinger and then Mr and Mrs Bollinger themselves.
Knives were used to threaten and to stop any resistance put up by the Bollinger family. The mother-in-law was the first being confronted by the robbers. She was injured on her thigh. Mrs Bollinger was next, and followed by Mr Bollinger, who was stabbed when he tried to ward off the robbers of their attacks.
As a result, he was cut and bleeding profusely. When he was finally admitted to hospital, he was found to have a 3.5 cm deep cut wound on his left forearm. Both a vein and a tendon on his forearm were cut. Emergency surgery had to be performed to repair the damage. His injuries at the time of the robbery were so severe that at one stage the robbers, no doubt worrying of his life, had to intervene and try to stop the bleeding.
At different junctures throughout the robbery, Mr and Mrs Bollinger were also tied up and their house was ransacked. Money and valuables were taken. When that did not satisfy the robbers’ greed, more cash was demanded. Mrs Bollinger was ordered to withdraw more cash from a nearby ATM machine.
Death threats were also made to kill the elderly, ie the mother‑in‑law, and the very young, ie the baby, a six‑weeks‑old baby.
The whole ordeal inside the house lasted more than two hours. More than 2 million worth of property was taken.
On 22 March 2011, these two defendants returned to No. 8 Mount Austin Road again. This time they burgled into one apartment. They stole cash and valuables from this household.
Almost all the aggravating features could be found in the present robbery case. It was committed by a group of professionals.
The 1st accused has 10 previous convictions, five related to robbery, attempted robbery, and assault with intent to rob, HCCC6/2000. On the last hearing, I adjourned the sentence to look at the court file. The court file reveals, amongst others, the 1st accused’s violent past in the year of 1999. In that year, the 1st accused, together with others, committed five robberies and robbery-related offences. Knives were displayed. Extreme violence was used. In one incident, a 10‑year-old boy was the target of the assault. Again, victims had been threatened to go to retrieve cash. Almost all the hallmarks of the present case are present.
The 2nd accused also has 10 previous convictions, one related to robbery and one related to burglary, DCCC401/2001. The court file of DCCC401/2001 reveals the 2nd accused’s use of violence in one robbery in the year 2000. In that case, when the victim resisted, he slashed her left arm.
Insofar as Lau Hung is concerned, Lau Hung returned to rob Mr Bollinger again in August 2011.
For the present robbery offence, Lau Hung was sentenced to 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment on a plea. In total, Lau Hung received a total of 10 years for the two robberies committed on Mr Bollinger.
In my view, 10 years is too short a sentence for this nasty robbery. I of course understand that like should be treated alike. However, in this case I have the benefit of listening to live witnesses’ evidence, which are a lot more in detail. Their evidence clearly demonstrates to me the horror that they encountered that night.
As I say, the three of them are not opportunistic robbers. They are professional. They come all the way from China to Hong Kong to vandalise residences up on The Peak. In the course of the robbery, private premises was invaded in the small hours. Not only weapons were displayed, they were also used to stop any resistance. Serious injuries have been caused to victims. These robbers had no hesitation in using violence. Death threats were made to the vulnerable.
The duration of the robbery was exceedingly long. In addition to the two hours inside the house, Mrs Bollinger was also forced to assist in the robbers’ getaway. Mrs Bollinger testified the fear that she had to endure during the journey. 2.2 million worth of property was taken; a substantial amount.
Given all the aggravating features in this case and the two defendants’ past similar robbery convictions, I am of the view that the appropriate starting point for this robbery should be set at 12 years’ imprisonment, the top end of armed robbery, of course, bearing in mind the maximum sentence for robbery is one of life imprisonment.
Although the 1st accused pleaded at or after the conclusion of the prosecution case, the fact of the matter is that that was almost the end of the entire case. The most I could give to the 1st accused is half of the conventional one‑third discount.
As such, for the 1st offence, the 1st accused is sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.
For the 2nd accused, he was convicted after trial. Although he was not the one who made the death threats and spoke to the Bollinger family, his role was equally significant and important. No attempt was made to apportion the blame between the 2nd accused from the others.
The 2nd accused tried his luck in the trial and failed. He therefore will be sentenced to the full 12 years’ imprisonment.
In respect of the 2nd offence, ie the burglary, the incident took place four months later again on No. 8 Mount Austin Road. This time another residential premises had been broken into. Fortunately, the occupants were unaware of the invasion. They were not harmed, and only property had been stolen.
3 years will be adopted as the starting point. Because of the plea, each defendant will be given the usual one‑third discount. As such, each is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.
The two offences took place four months apart and are two separate incidents. Their sentences should in principle be running consecutively, subject to the totality principle.
In view of the length of sentence imposed on Count 1, I believe it is appropriate to order, out of the 2 years, 18 months to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed in Count 1.
In conclusion, for the 1st accused, he is sentenced to 11½ years’ imprisonment.
For the 2nd accused, he is sentenced to 13½ years’ imprisonment.