HKSAR v. LEE KAI WING

HCCC 430/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 430 OF 2016

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before a magistrate of two charges of robbery and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.

The case relates to two incidents of taxi robbery. The first incident took place at night time on 3 January 2016. The defendant boarded a taxi of victim 1; he instructed him to go to various places and eventually to Tung Wui Estate, Wong Tai Sin. Upon arrival, the defendant pointed a knife of about 7 inches long at the victim’s waist and declared robbery. The victim was scared and surrendered cash of about $550 to the defendant. The defendant then fled.

On the following night, the defendant boarded the taxi of victim 2 and asked him to drive to Mei Tung Estate, Wong Tai Sin. Upon arrival, the defendant asked to wait on the taxi for a friend. After about 15 minutes, the victim loosened his safety belt as he wanted to go to a toilet. At that time, the defendant pointed a knife at the victim’s abdomen and tried to snatch the cash and the two mobile phones which the victim put near him. The victim put up a struggle and was injured by the knife at several parts of his body. The defendant fled, leaving behind his jacket and mobile phone. As a result of the incident, the victim suffered the following injuries.

(1) Lacerations over right index, middle and ring fingers with tendon of middle and ring fingers cut.

(2) Left hand shallow cuts with laceration at left index finger.

(3) A shallow laceration without bleeding over the left abdomen.

He required an operation to treat the cut tendon and stitching were needed for the laceration wounds. He was hospitalised for two days and was granted sick leave of 71 days. He required follow-up treatment, occupational therapy and physiotherapy.

When he was seen by doctor in mid-July this year, it was found that he was still suffering from residual stiffness of his right middle finger. The victim is able to cope with his job as a driver.

After the defendant had been arrested, he admitted the offences.

The defendant is 33 years of age. He received Form 3 education and had worked as a transportation worker, construction site worker and a lorry driver. He is married. At the time of the offence, he lived alone and was unemployed. His wife has to live in the mainland to look after her aged parents, but the couple met frequently and the defendant maintained regular financial contribution to his wife.

This was the fifth time the defendant was convicted of an offence involving dishonesty. His first conviction occurred in 1999, when he was less than 16 years old. For an offence of theft, a probation order was imposed. Two years later, in 2001, he was sent to detention centre for again an offence of theft. He managed to stay out of trouble for a decade.

In 2012, for an offence of attempted burglary, a Community Service Order was imposed on him. The order was later discharged upon two incidents of breach and replaced by an imprisonment term of 8 months. In August 2014, for an offence of burglary, he was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. He was discharged from prison in August 2015 and in January the following year, he committed these offences.

Learned counsel for the defence, Miss Cheung, informed the court that it was difficult for the defendant to look for a job after his discharge and he was depressed. It was in these difficult circumstances that he committed the offences. She stressed that the defendant is now remorseful and asked the court to take into account that he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.

The nature of the offence which the defendant committed is a very serious one. In Tran Van Anh [1993] 2 HKCLR 122, the Court of Appeal said:

“Taxi drivers are particularly vulnerable to robbery, especially those who ply for hire late at night or in the early hours of the morning or who pick up or drop passengers in quiet locations. Hence sentences of 7 years’ imprisonment after a contested trial would be justified for offences similar to that in the present case.”

The approach in Tran Van Anh was adopted by the Court of Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Tso Tsz Kin, CAAR 1/2003, and more recently in HKSAR v Hussain Shakil, CACC 387/2011.

In the present two cases, a knife was used to point at the driver. It is not difficult to appreciate the fear of drivers suffered as a result. What the defendant did caused injuries to victim 2 which was not light in seriousness. Though the facts indicate that the injuries were caused when the victim himself put up a struggle, it was not something beyond the contemplation of the defendant when he embarked on a robbery, armed with a knife. The cash involved was not of great amount and this is quite typical in a taxi robbery case.

In the second incident, the defendant tried to snatch two mobile phones of the victim which were valued at more than $10,000. The two robberies were committed on two consecutive days and only about half a year after his discharge from prison.

In all the circumstances, I adopt the following starting points: Charge 1, 7 years; Charge 2, 7½ years. A higher starting point is adopted for Charge 2 because injuries had been caused to the victim.

The defendant pleaded guilty and for this reason, he is entitled to a one-third discount. In all the circumstances, having regard to the mitigation submission, this is the extent of discount the defendant is entitled to.

For the above-said reasons, I sentence you to the following imprisonment terms: Charge 1, 4 years and 8 months; Charge 2, 5 years. Having regard to totality, I order 28 months of Charge 2 to run consecutively to the sentence imposed on Charge 1.

So you are to serve a total sentence of 7 years for the two charges.