HKSAR v. SOHAIL AHMED

DCCC 1495/2024

[2026] HKDC 1307

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1495 OF 2024

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

Plea

1.  The Defendant is charged with 2 counts of “Robbery” and “Attempted robbery”, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210 and also sections 159G and 159J of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.  Particulars of Charge 1 alleged that on 4 August 2024 at 7-Eleven Convenience Store, Shop No. S004, Ground Floor, Chuk Yuen Plaza, No. 15 Chuk Yuen Road, Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, robbed Mr Wong of cash of $13,700 Hong Kong currency.  Particulars of Charge 2 alleged that on 4 August 2024 at 7-Eleven Convenience Store, Ground Floor, No. 306 Lai Chi Kok Road, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, attempted to rob Ms Ching.

2.  TheDefendant pleaded guilty to both charges (late guilty plea with indication about 10 days before the trial).

Agreed facts

3.  The first robbery was committed between around 0351 and 0352 hours on 4 August 2024 at a 7-Eleven Convenience Store located at Shop No. S004, Ground Floor, Chuk Yuen Plaza, No. 15 Chuk Yuen Road, Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon (“Shop 1”).

4.  The second attempted robbery was committed between around 1218 and 1222 hours on 4  August 2024 at a 7-Eleven Convenience Store located at Ground Floor, No. 306 Lai Chi Kok Road, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, in Hong Kong (“Shop 2”).

Charge 1: Shop 1

5.  At around 0351 hours on 4 August 2024, the Defendant entered Shop 1 and took a pack of drink from the beverage cabinet and approached the front of the cashier counter, which was manned by Mr Wong (“PW1”), who was working as the night-shift salesperson at Shop 1 at the material time.  The Defendant placed the drink on the counter and handed a HK$10 banknote.  When PW1 opened the cash register, the Defendant suddenly produced a 10 cm long threatening object (“the object”) and said in Cantonese: “Give me all the money.  This is a robbery!”

6.  The Defendant then reached his arm into the cash register to grab the money, but his arm was not long enough to reach it. Following the Defendant’s order to take out the money, PW1 took out a stack of HK$100 banknotes from the cash register and handed them over to the Defendant.  As soon as the Defendant was able to reach the money, he proceeded to leave Shop l.  However, he returned very shortly afterwards and pointed the object at PW1, telling him to take out all the money and not to move.  PW1 handed the Defendant a stack of HK$500 banknotes.  The Defendant then fled from Shop 1 at around 0352 hours.

7.  Upon checking, Shop 1 was robbed a total of HK$13,700 (“the stolen money”). CCTV at Shop 1 clearly captured the full incident.

8.  Upon leaving Shop 1, the Defendant flagged down a taxi bearing registration number NA6*** (“the taxi”) at the junction of Ngan Chuk Lane and Choi Chuk Street.  He was carrying the clutch bag tucked under his left armpit, and boarded the taxi, which was driven by Mr Shum (“PW2”).  The Defendant sat in the rear right-hand passenger seat.  The ride took around 10 minutes and he alighted near Argyle Street and Fa Yuen Street.

9.  The taxi was equipped with a dashboard camera (“the dashboard camera”) and captured the Defendant’s appearance and actions, including the following: counting banknotes which he later placed inside the clutch bag; removing his face cloth, upon which his face could be clearly seen; putting on a necklace; taking off his T-shirt, turning it inside out, and putting it back on, revealing the letter “D” on the front; a large tattoo on his right forearm, and wearing a hoop carrying on his left ear.

Charge 2: Shop 2

10.  At around 1218 hours on 4 August 2024, the Defendant entered Shop 2.

11.  Ms Ching (“PW4”) was a store manager and was working at Shop 2 on a special duty-shift at the material time.  While PW4 was working at the cashier counter, the Defendant approached the front of the cashier counter as if for payment.  He clenched his right fist and extended it toward the open cash register and said to PW4 in Cantonese “Hand it over. Hand it over.”  PW4 asked him not to extend his hand towards the cash register.  The Defendant then walked to the side of the swing door at the cashier counter (being the door used by staff to enter and exit the counter area), opened the small white plastic container for stationery and tools placed on top of the cashier counter, and took out a cutter (“the cutter”).  He extended the blade of the cutter by approximately 3 cm, pointed it at PW4, and said again “Hand it over.”  PW4 realized that it was a robbery and did not give any response.  The Defendant retracted the blade, returned the cutter to the white plastic container and left Shop 2 at around 1222 hours.

12.  Shop 2 suffered no monetary loss.  CCTV at Shop 2 clearly captured the full incident.

Arrest and VRIs

13.  At around 1518 hours on the following day, i.e. 5 August 2024, PC16835 (“PW7”) was conducting anti-crime patrol in the Mong Kok District and spotted a South Asian  male matching the description of the Defendant at Portland Street near Nelson Street (outside Langham Place), and requested backup.

14.  At around 1520 hours, PW7 intercepted the Defendant. PC18846 (“PW6”) arrived at 1520 hours at Portland Street near Nelson Street to render assistance.  Upon seeing the Defendant’s appearance, including the large tattoo on his right forearm and carrying the clutch bag, PW6 had reason to believe that the Defendant was involved in the present case.  He thus revealed his police identity and produced his police warrant card to the Defendant.  During enquiries the Defendant suddenly threw a tantrum, yelled, and tried to run away in the direction of Shantung Street.  PW6 and other officers immediately subdued him, repeatedly identifying themselves as police officers and giving him verbal warnings.  As he kept struggling, the Defendant was handcuffed behind his back.

15.  After DPC17671 arrived at Portland Street near Nelson Street at around 1522 hours and pointed out to PW6 that the Defendant was the person at large in relation to the attempted robbery at Shop 2, PW6 arrested the Defendant for the attempted robbery at Shop 2. PW6 seized the clutch bag from the Defendant.

16.  On 6 August 2024, DPC26454 (“PW8”) arrested the Defendant for the robbery at Shop 1.  PW8 conducted cautioned video-recorded interviews (“VRIs”) with the Defendant on 6 August 2024.  During the second VRI, the Defendant said inter alia that he was drunk and drinking in Sham Shui Po on 4 August 2024: and he confirmed that he was being captured in the CCTV screenshot shown to him in relation to Charge 2.  The stolen money was not recovered.

Criminal record & background

17.  The Defendant is aged 22 (aged 19 at the time of the present offence), educated up to secondary form 1.  From 2019 to 2022, the Defendant has 4 previous convictions, one conviction is similar to the present offence while other two related to theft.  He was sentenced to training centre for robbery in March 2022.  I was told that he was still under the supervision period at the time of this offence. 

Mitigation

18.  Mr Li has prepared detailed written mitigation with relevant authorities.  He stressed on the mitigating factors as follows.  Firstly, he asked for ¼ discount for his late guilty plea.  Secondly, there is no significant aggravating features in this case.  Thirdly, he asked the court not to enhance sentence for the Defendant’s criminal record.  Lastly, he asked the court to consider totality principle. 

Discussion

19.  Armed robbery is a serious offence.  Section 10(2) of the Ordinance provides that the maximum sentence forrobberyis life imprisonment.

20.  The leading sentencing guideline case for armed robbery is Mo Kwong Sang v R [1981] HKLR 610.  It was suggested that in cases of armed robbery where the defendant carried a knife or other dangerous weapon which he displayed to his victim, the starting point should be one of 5 years’ imprisonment; that where the robbery involved an invasion of private premises, a starting point of 6 years was appropriate; and that if physical violence, including tying up the victim, was used, a starting point of 7 years should be considered.  Where in attempted robbery, the sentencing principles in Mo Kwong Sangwould apply when the primary elements of the robbery offence had been carried out, even if it were unsuccessful: 王少軍 CACC 131/2000.

21.  In my judgment, the relevant aggravating factors are present in the case:

(i) The robbery was premeditated;

(ii) The Defendant carried with threatening object and cutter and used them during the robbery; and

(iii) The robbery was targeted at convenience store.

22.  In the light of the above, I adopt a starting point of 5 years for each charge and enhance it to 5 years and 4 months for the above aggravating factors.  I would allow a one-fourth discount for the Defendant’s late guilty plea, resulting in 48 months’ imprisonment for each charge.  I do not intend to enhance his sentence for his similar records in 2022 as the overall sentence here should reflect the criminality and gravity of the offence.  Lastly, to avoid sentence being excessive, I order 12 months of Charge 1 be made consecutive to Charge 2, the final sentence is 5 years’ (60 months) imprisonment.