The defendant had a permit to travel to and from Hong Kong, and he is ordinarily resident on the mainland. He came to Hong Kong on 1 November 2018. On 2 November 2018, he saw the victim in the case in Mongkok. The victim was alone and the time was around shortly after midnight. When they passed each other, the defendant then pushed the victim and then produced a large cutter from his jacket pocket and declared robbery.
The victim told the defendant he had no money, whereupon the defendant then tried to stab the victim’s stomach. The victim used his left hand to block the blade of the cutter and resulting in the blade going into the middle finger of his left hand. Then the defendant moved the blade and slashed it across the victim’s palm towards his thumb and index finger. The victim started to bleed, and the defendant walked away, and the victim was subsequently helped by a passer-by, and an ambulance was called.
The defendant then left Hong Kong on 2 November 2018. He came again on 3 December 2018. The police arrested him, and a 6-inch cutter was recovered from the defendant’s person. The defendant then admitted to the police officers under caution that he did come to Hong Kong on the previous month either to look for a job or, failing that, he would steal or rob. He admitted to the robbery or attempted robbery, and he told the police that he returned to Hong Kong on 3 December also with the same intention either to look for a job on the black market. Failing that, he would steal or rob.
The victim was subsequently treated at the Kwong Wah Hospital, and it was discovered that his left middle finger radial digital artery was torn and beyond repair. Also, he suffered substantial injury to his left index finger. The victim was subsequently hospitalised, and at an identification parade, the victim positively identified the defendant. And in an updated medical report, the victim still has limited flexion of his left index finger, and he only has a 30-degree flexion of his left middle finger. The victim is only 27 years old and has to live with these injuries which he suffered totally innocently.
The defendant is aged 30 and has a clear record in Hong Kong. The only mitigation I can see in this case is the fact that he pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. Mr Tse has said everything he could possibly say on behalf of the defendant. He also submitted a letter from the defendant, stating that he will mend his ways and turn over a new leaf.
As Mr Tse correctly pointed out, the leading case on this kind of robbery is really the case of Mo Kwong Sang v R which was in 1981. And in there, the Court of Appeal recommended that the starting point for robbery involving a knife or other dangerous weapons which is revealed to the victim would merit a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment, and this can be increased by the courts taking into account the different aggravating factors in this case.
This was indeed a very dangerous form of robbery because the defendant not only produced the cutter but when the victim said he did not have money, aimed the cutter straight at the victim’s stomach and had the victim not successfully warded off the cutter with his hand, the injuries might have very, very serious consequences. The victim innocently suffered permanent injuries to his hand. A very cruel and vicious attack.
I have considered the guidelines as laid down in the case of Mo Kwong Sang and have also considered all the circumstances in this case. Taking a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment, I have decided to increase it by 1 year to 6 years’ imprisonment. The victim was walking along the street, minding his own business in the middle of the night when he was attacked because he had no money with him. The knife he was attacked with was indeed a very sharp one. So I would adopt a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment. Because of his plea, I reduce it to 4 years.
Now, on the 2nd count of wounding with intent, this is a very serious case of wounding with intent. This offence calls for a maximum of life imprisonment. The viciousness of the attack shows that the defendant intended to inflict really serious injury on the victim. I would impose a starting point of 6 years and reduce it to 4 because of his plea, but I do not agree with Mr Tse that both sentences should be concurrent because this was an unnecessary attack on the victim when he said he had no money with him. But of course taking into account the overall circumstances, I will make 1½ years of this 4 years consecutive to the 4 years’ imprisonment in Charge 1. The rest of that 4 years will be concurrent to the 1st count.
On the 3rd count, I will impose a sentence of 9 months’ imprisonment reduced to 6 months because of his plea, and this will be consecutive to the sentences in the 1st and 2nd counts, and so the defendant will go to prison for 6 years.