HKSAR v. NG TSZ KIN

DCCC466/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 466 OF 2009

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap, 210.

Facts of the case

2.  At about 6:30pm on 19. 3.2009, PW2 to PW4 and a Mr. Kong gathered at PW1’s hut in Sheung Shui for a game of mahjong.

3.  PW3 also invited the Defendant to come. At about 8:50pm, the Defendant and an unknown man (later known as Bobby) arrived at the hut.

4.  Bobby suddenly produced a knife and shouted loudly if “ Ming Chai” was there, he used the knife to pat on Mr. Kong a few times and demanded the parties to hand over their mobile phones. The Defendant took away 3 mobile phones. PW1 also handed in PW2’s mobile phone.

5.  The Defendant also asked Bobby if he needed to take away the computer, but Bobby told him that it was unnecessary.

6.  They then left with the 4 mobile phones and got onto a private vehicle and drove away.

7.  On the way to Shueng Shui police station, PW3 saw the Defendant. He was then arrested; he denied the offence under caution.

8.  In the video record of interview, the Defendant said that: -

1.  Booby went to the hut to collect debt.

2.  It was Bobby told the victims to surrender their

phones to him

3.  He handed all the mobile phones to Bobby.

4.  Bobby put the knife in the rear passenger seat.

9.  In a house search, 2 knives were found under the Defendant’s bed. Under caution, the Defendant said that one of the knives was used by Bobby and he handed the 2 knives to him afterwards.

10.  In a further record of interview, the Defendant said that: -

1.  he was asked by Bobby to collect a debt of

$10,000 and he would be given $5,000 as a reward.

2.  He found out that “ Ho Ming” was inside the

wooden hut and he went there with Bobby.

3.  However, “Ho Ming” had no money to pay Bobby,

therefore, the 4 mobiles phones were taken away

as “interest”.

4.  Defendant took the 2 knives and put them under

his bed inside a bag.

11.  The stolen properties worth $6000.

Criminal Record

12.  In 2006, the defendant was put on probation for a conviction of possession of dangerous drugs. In breach of a probation order, he was sentenced to DATC. In 2008, he was fined $1200 for a conviction of Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

Mitigation

13.  The Defendant is now 19 years old.

14.  He was told by Bobby to collect debts from a Ming Chai in the hut. His role was to assist Bobby. He had not received any reward yet. The 4 mobile phones were handed to Bobby.

15.  He was stupid to commit this offence, as PW3 knew where he lived.

16.  Having heard the mitigation, I called a Training Centre report.

17.  Today, the Defendant in his own letter also expressed remorse and regret for his own deeds. He knows that his family continues to support him as they visit him during the last 8 months when he is remanded in custody.

18.  His mother attends Court everytime to demonstrate her support to the Defendant. The Defence Counsel also told me that his mother feels very hurt and painful in this incident. The defendant knows that his mother cares very much for him; he promises that he will not let his family down again.

19.  I am sure that the Defendant should have known about his mother’s unfailing support to him when he was detained in DATC for compulsory treatment. Yet, he remains as a drug dependant. He just pays lip services one time after the other.

Sentence

20.  The report said that he dropped out from school in early 2005.

21.  His parents have to work hard to keep up with the family expenses. Although his grandmother looked after him, child discipline on him was basically lose and inadequate.

22.  He also affiliates with triad related friends, under the bad influence from his peers, he has turned wayward.

23.  He started to take ketamine in 2006 and at the time of committing the current offence, he needed $500 to finance his drug habits daily.

24.  He had been to DATC, but this compulsory treatment could not help him. He relapsed into taking drugs again. The Training Centre does not recommend admission because of his drug problem.

25.  The Defendant has committed a very serious offence. It was through his connection with PW3, that he brought Bobby to the hut to commit the present offence.

26.  When Bobby displayed the knife, he did not stop him. The knife has a blade of 12 inches long with a 6 inches handle, no doubt, this kind of weapon when displayed in this circumstance was intimidating. That explained that no one in the hut resisted them. PW1 just handed the phones to the Defendant. He even went further to ask Bobby if the computer was necessary to be taken away.

27.  Although the Defendant did not carry and display the knife to Mr. Kong, but the fact that he participated in the scheme in carrying out Bobby’s act was equally guilty of the offence. It does not amount to any mitigating factor.

29.  In the case of Mo Kwong Sang 1981 1 HKLR 610, which remains the guideline case for armed robbery when knife was displayed to the victim, it should attract a sentence of 5 years.

30.  The fact that the Defendant is 19 years old, is also not a mitigation factor in such a serious charge. A term of imprisonment is called for for both deterrent and punishment.

31.  In view of the Defendant’s guilty plea, I adopt a starting point of 5 years and reduce to 40 months to reflect his guilty plea.