HKSAR v. SHA KAM CHEUNG

DCCC486/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 486 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

2.  In the afternoon of 10 April 2012, the 36-year-old female victim, PW1, was walking along Lin Cheung Street in Mong Kok, when she was suddenly grabbed by the defendant from behind.  She struggled and fell to the ground and the defendant snatched her bag, P1.  A struggle ensued in which the defendant hit PW1 over the head several times with P1.  The defendant then fled.  PW1 cried out for help and a pedestrian, PW2, was alerted.  PW2 followed the defendant and called the police.  Subsequently the defendant was subdued by a police officer, PW3, with the assistance of PW2. 

3.  PW1’s bag contained a wallet worth $4,000, some cards, several hundred dollars, a mobile telephone worth $5,400, and some other personal items.  As a result of the robbery PW1 suffered minor injuries.

The defendant’s background and mitigation

4.  The defendant is 45 years old, married, with two 3-year-old twin daughters.  His wife suffers from chronic lower back pain and requires regular treatment.  The wife relies on the defendant in respect of housework and care of the daughters.  The wife alleges that she is suffering from depression, and one of the daughters appears to be suffering from some emotional problems as a result of the defendant’s arrest.

5.  The defendant was a casual electrician until early 2009.  He alleges that there was no work available, and he has been unemployed since early 2009.  The family is living on CSSA of $10,800 per month.  The defendant explained that he had committed the present offence because the CSSA was insufficient. 

6.  The defendant has five previous convictions, three of which related to robbery.  There was a further conviction for violence.  He has been out of trouble with the law for about 15 years.

Sentence

7.  Counsel relied on the case of HKSAR v Ting Chiu & Ors, CACC174/2003, and HKSAR v Lam Ka Hung, CACC294/2003.  He submitted that the four year starting point is at the highest end of the tariff for an armed robbery.  He urged me to adopt a starting point of 4 years. 

8.  I have considered the facts of this case, the submissions and the cases cited very carefully.  In HKSAR v Ting Chiu brother CJ never said that the highest tariff for all unarmed robbery was 4 years.  That starting point was the highest tariff in the circumstances of that particular case.  In HKSAR v Ting Chiu there was no suggestion that the defendants had any previous convictions. 

9.  In HKSAR v Lam Ka Hung the defendant had no previous similar convictions.  In the present case the defendant is a repeated offender.  Further, there is no dispute that the actual violence used in the present case was more serious than that in the cases cited.

10.  In all the circumstances and taking into consideration the fact that the previous convictions were 15 years ago I adopt a starting point of 5 years.  I give the defendant full credit for his guilty plea.  The sentence is reduced to 40 months.