HKSAR v. HO KWAI CHE

HCCC 364/2020

[2021] HKCFI 2417

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 364 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

______________________________________

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

______________________________________

COURT: Mr Ho, you pleaded guilty before the Eastern Magistrates’ Court on 28 December 2020 to two counts of robbery, contrary to section 10(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

Those two counts relate to incidents on 7 June of last year and on 12 June last year. Under the 1^st count, when you were a passenger in a taxi, you put a cutter to the throat of the taxi driver and you demanded cash and you fled with HK$1,600, and on 12 June you did exactly the same thing. You were a passenger in a taxi, you pointed a cutter at the driver’s neck and demanded he hand over all his money which this time amounted to $1,500. Both of those incidents were in the middle of the night.

You are now 48 years old and you are single. You have a criminal record dating back to 1998 when you were just 15 years old, and since that date, you have been before the courts on a regular basis, including for matters of possession in dangerous drugs, robbery and burglary.

Indeed, you received significant terms of imprisonment for robbery in 2003 and 2008, and in 2008 you must have immediately reoffended on release from prison. But I do notice that your offending since that date has tapered off just a little and from 2016 you have not been before the courts, or at least you have not been punished by the courts.

Mr Yeung on your behalf has done all he really can to mitigate. He has told the court about your family background and your very large and humble family and that you were only educated up to Form 1. You told the police that you had been employed previously as a construction worker but that you were unemployed at the time that you offended and that you were homeless because you had managed to have a row with your mother. You say you had been sleeping rough for just a few weeks.

It appears that your change in circumstances encouraged you to resort to type despite the fact that you have managed to keep out of trouble for a few years. Mr Yeung was not in a position to be able to explain why, as a fit and healthy man of mature years, you could not get a job. The construction industry in Hong Kong is a thriving industry and I know because of the experience that this court has, that everybody who is in Hong Kong illegally manages to get a job in the construction industry and yet you cannot. So I do not know if you made any effort whatsoever to find employment, and it does seem that you just took the easy option by targeting taxi drivers in the middle of the night.

Mr Ho, offences committed against taxi drivers are very serious indeed. The taxi drivers of Hong Kong perform a public service. We cherish them. They work anti-social hours so that the citizens of Hong Kong can feel safe travelling late at night. They place themselves in a vulnerable position because they have no idea who is going to get into their cab.

As far back as the case of R v Li Lun Hoi, CACC 1387/1983, it was considered appropriate to adopt a starting point for sentence of 5 to 6 years for the, if I can call it, run-of-the-mill taxi-driver robbery.

Taxi drivers clearly deserve the protection of the courts and you obviously have no proper understanding of just how terrifying it is when there is a cutter held to your throat. It was incredibly reckless of you to have used a cutter at all as opposed to a knife. That is because it is all the more sharp and the slightest pressure would wound someone, but worst still, it could have severed a vein and put the driver at risk of serious injury and possibly death.

I have considered the case of R v Tran Van Anh [1993] 2 HKCLR 122 and the case of HKSAR v Hussain Shakil, CACC 387/2011, in which it was noted that a starting point of 7 years was not inappropriate. I consider that the correct starting point in this case. As the two offences were committed on different dates against different victims, then they should be served consecutively save for the issue of totality.

Given that I take the view that there was a spree you were intent upon and no doubt you would have continued if you had not been stopped, I consider that the proper sentence after discount for a timely plea is one of 4 years 8 months upon Count 1 and 4 years 8 months upon Count 2, 2 years 4 months of which will be served consecutively to the sentence at Count 1, making a total sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment.