CRIMINAL CASE NO. 350 OF 2011
COURT: Sometime after 4 am on 15 September 2006 there was a robbery at retail premises located on the ground floor of the Come On Building, 387 Castle Peak Road, Tuen Mun.
The proprietor of those premises, who I will refer to as the victim, was working in the early hours of the morning tidying up. He was confronted by three masked men. One of them was armed with a knife. They indicated to him that their intent was robbery. They had come prepared. One of them was also carrying with him plastic restraints. The victim was tied up with those together with tape which was taken from a desk in the premises.
His arms and legs were bound and his mouth was gagged. One of the three men took the victim’s wallet. Upon searching the wallet he found three cards; one was an HSBC ATM card, the other, a Hang Seng Bank Visa Card and the other, an AIS credit card.
The victim was told to write down the personal identification numbers of each of those cards. In fear, this he did. It was after this that two of the three men left the premises whilst the other remained with the victim.
Some 10 minutes later the third man with the victim received a telephone call, obviously from the other two, and he then left the premises but not before he took from the victim his mobile telephone.
It was shortly after this that another person, a regular customer of the store, chanced upon the scene. He released the victim and gave chase after the culprits. The victim called the police.
A telephone call established that the robbers had managed to extract almost $22,000 from the various accounts of the victim between the time that they had taken the cards and his contacting the respective establishments.
Fingerprint impressions were lifted from the tapes that had been used to bind the victim and also the glass top of a table in the premises. No matches were found for any of those fingerprints until January of 2011. Is was at or about that time that this defendant’s fingerprints were obtained as a result of his being arrested and convicted of another offence.
Ultimately, the defendant was arrested in April of 2011. He was questioned about this robbery but exercised his right to remain silent. In late April he took part in an identification parade but the victim was, as one would expect after all of these years, unable to make any positive identification.
The defendant has today pleaded guilty to this charge of robbery. He is now aged 31. He has one conviction recorded against him for managing a vice establishment but this was an offence which was committed many years after this robbery and is not a matter that is relevant to my sentencing today.
He is a single man who has a limited education. The antecedents statements do not develop matters further and I have before me a number of matters in written form being representations on behalf of family members seeking that I impose upon the defendant a lenient sentence.
In mitigation before me today, Miss Ma quite properly emphasises that the substantive mitigation on behalf of this defendant is his plea of guilty. I agree with that.
Whilst it is appropriate for other members of his family to make representations as to his previous character, in the circumstances of this offence and robbery generally, it is usually very unlikely that these would enable a sentencer to further enhance the discount from the appropriate starting point.
What then in the circumstances is the appropriate starting point for sentence in this case? Robbery, especially an armed robbery as this was, is always a serious offence. In the present case there were a number of aggravating factors. There were multiple offenders. The victim’s premises were invaded in the early hours of the morning. He was tied up and blindfolded. His credit cards and bank cards were taken, as were the PIN numbers. This ultimately led to the extraction of a substantial sum from those accounts.
This robbery was clearly premeditated, not only were the offenders armed but they had with them masks and the ability to secure their victim’s hands.
Miss Ma submits on his behalf that he was not the mastermind. But she also readily accepts that in a situation such as this where all are participating together that makes little or no difference.
What then is the appropriate starting point after trial? I am satisfied in the circumstances of this case that the appropriate starting point after trial is a sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment. The defendant will receive a full one-third discount to reflect his plea of guilty.
In those circumstances, allowing for that, the appropriate sentence I calculate to be one of 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
I would ask counsel to confirm with me that that calculation as a one-third discount is correct?
MISS MA: Yes, my Lord, yes.
COURT: In which case the sentence I impose is 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.