COURT: All three defendants pleaded guilty to one count of robbery, on 13 June 2024 and were committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today, all three confirm their pleas and admission of the Summary of Facts. There were five other co-accused named in the particulars of this robbery. These three defendants today were arrested after other co-accused.
At 11 am on 3 March 2020, five men, including the three defendants entered a ground-floor jewellery and gold shop in Yuen Long, New Territories. The five men were wearing face masks and gloves. There were six staff working in the shop at the time. There were no customers inside. All five had alighted from a vehicle that moved away immediately but waited for the five men nearby. Upon entry to the shop, one of the five robbers pointed a knife at the staff whilst others smashed the glass display units with an axe and two hammers. A total of seven gold rings and 71 gold bracelets were stolen. The total value was $605,091. This robbery took place within two minutes.
The vehicle used in this robbery was found later that day and discovered to have been stolen a week or so earlier. After some arrests, one of the co-accused was dealt with on 3 November 2022, and two others were dealt with on 4 November 2022 before Madam Justice Campbell-Moffat. All three had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. I have had sight of the reasons for sentence relating to those three co-accused.
One of the co-accused gave evidence to the police which led to the arrest of these three defendants in this case and others.
Mitigation
All counsel have said all they can say on behalf of each defendant. Their pleas of guilty are their best mitigation. All counsel urge me to take the same starting point imposed on the other co-accused sentenced in November 2022 in HCCC 216 of 2021. There, the sentencing judge took an initial starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment and increased it to 6 years to take into account the aggravating factor that it was a well-organised and pre-planned robbery where robbers were recruited.
It was further enhanced by another year to 7 years’ imprisonment for the fact it was a jewellery shop, weapons were displayed and five robbers entered together. In addition, there was violence in the form of smashing up property to steal gold jewellery.
The starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment was deemed appropriate, and those three co-accused benefited from a full one-third discount for their pleas at the earliest opportunity.
The 1st defendant is represented by Mr Chiu. The 1st defendant is 53 years old, single, and came to Hong Kong from Pakistan in 1990. He has 8 previous convictions consisting of possession of drugs, trafficking drugs, driving offences and one theft conviction in 2017. He had part-time employment when arrested. His evidence and explanation is he was recruited to be the driver of this robbery. He was promised a share of the proceeds stolen but never received any reward.
The 2nd defendant, represented by Ms Herbert, is 27 years old and came to Hong Kong from Nepal in 1999. He has 10 previous convictions relating to offences of drugs, fighting, resisting a police officer and theft as well as one previous conviction for robbery but it was in 2011 when he was sentenced to a drug addiction treatment centre order.
I have read a letter he has written to court, expressing his remorse and an intention to turn over a new leaf. This might be more believable if he did not have so many previous convictions.
The 3rd defendant is represented by Ms Alva. He is 25 years old, came to Hong Kong from Nepal in 2005. He was unemployed at the time of his arrest. He has two previous convictions but those sentences were imposed whilst he was remanded for this case. On 29 January 2024, he was sentenced after trial to 13 years’ imprisonment for robbery and 8 years’ imprisonment for wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm in HCCC 131 of 2021 and HCCC 149 of 2023. I have read the reasons for sentences regarding those convictions. He was sentenced to a total of 13 years’ imprisonment.
I have seen a letter from the 3rd defendant and someone from a Christian association who has visited and spent time with the 3rd defendant whilst in prison. I have seen an enrolment in an upcoming course.
He is single but has a girlfriend with whom he has a 5-year-old son. His mother passed away in July 2024 whilst he was in prison. He is ashamed he has disappointed his family.
Sentence
The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for the offence of robbery is that of life imprisonment. The Court of Appeal laid down guidelines in the case of Mo Kwong Sang v R [1981] HKLR 610 on sentencing cases involving the offence of armed robberies.
The appropriate sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery where a knife was used or displayed should normally be in the range of 5 years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal has emphasised that sentences can be increased if there are any other aggravating factors. In this case, they would include the fact that this robbery was committed by more than one person and that it was well planned and premeditated, targeting a gold shop.
I do not distinguish the roles of the three defendants here. They are equally culpable. Bearing in mind the 7-year starting point adopted for their co-defendants who were arrested and dealt with earlier, I will adopt the same starting point in relation to all three defendants after taking into consideration the facts and the aggravating factors identified.
All three defendants have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. The 3rd defendant has no other mitigating factors to consider. For the 3rd defendant, after I apply a one-third discount to that 7-year starting point, his sentence is reduced to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
The 1st and 2nd defendant have mitigating factors I consider relevant. Therefore, I will apply a 37 per cent discount to that starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment. This applies to both defendants. Therefore, their sentences are reduced to 4 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.
I repeat. The 1st defendant is sentenced to 4 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.
The 2nd defendant is also sentenced to 4 years and 5 months’ imprisonment.
The 3rd defendant is sentenced to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
There is the additional issue relating only to the 3rd defendant, and that is the fact he is presently serving a 13-year term of imprisonment imposed on 29 January 2024 for another robbery as well as an additional wounding count. The date of those offences was 21 September 2018. The robbery in this case took place about 17 months later.
I will take into account the totality principle and order half of the sentence imposed today, that is 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed in HCCC 131 of 2021 and 149 of 2023, with the balance to be served concurrently. Therefore, the 3rd defendant will for all three cases serve a total of 15 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.