HKSAR v. LEE WAI YIP, RAY

HCCC 270/2024

[2025] HKCFI 1952

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 270 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

The Charge

1.  On 22 August 2024, the defendant pleaded guilty in the magistracy to two charges of robbery, contrary to section 10(1)  and (2)  of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.  On the same day, the defendant admitted a Summary of Facts dated 21 August 2024 and he was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.  Today, before this Court, the defendant confirmed his guilty pleas to the two robbery charges and his admission of the Summary of Facts.

Facts Admitted

2.  The two robberies occurred on different days in May 2022 in North Point and Quarry Bay respectively and on each occasion, the defendant stalked a lone woman and forcefully grabbed her handbag or bag.

3.  The first robbery took place in the late evening of 24 May 2022.  The defendant followed the victim (who was aged 50)  and entered a lift on the ground floor of a private residential building.  The victim came out from the lift on the 7^th floor and so did the defendant.  Suddenly, the defendant dashed towards the victim along the corridor and used his hand to try to push her down which she resisted.  The defendant then pushed the victim’s left shoulder and put a cloth over her face.  The victim detected a strong smell of thinner and felt painful in her eyes.  The defendant then snatched her handbag and ran away with her personal properties in it, including an Octopus card, three bank cards, a Hong Kong identity card and cash of $1,000.  The victim was subsequently medically examined and she was found to suffer from mild erythema on her face with no external wound.

4.  The second robbery took place in the morning of 25 May 2022.  On this occasion, the defendant followed another victim (aged 67)  into a lift in a private residential building.  As the lift reached the 6^th floor, the victim came out of the lift and the defendant followed her.  Suddenly, at the lift lobby, the defendant used his hand to cover the victim’s eyes.  He then used strong force to pull the shoulder bag which was being carried by the victim.  The victim tried to hold on to the bag but was unsuccessful after a struggle.  The defendant then ran away with the bag which contained, inter alia, a mobile phone, an Octopus card, a bank card, a Hong Kong identity card, a Home Return Permit and cash of $6,000.

5.  Upon arrest for both cases of robbery, the defendant only admitted to have committed the robbery as per the 2^nd charge.

Background and Mitigation

6.  The defendant was 50 years old at the time of the offences and he is now aged 53 and single.  He has an appalling criminal record.  He has 57 previous convictions of which 39 were for robbery offences.  On the last occasion when he was brought before the High Court for sentencing in HCCC393/2018, it was in respect of five counts of robbery also involving stalking and robbing females who were alone and vulnerable at a lift lobby or other private locations.  In that case, the sentencing Judge observed that the defendant had already been convicted of five similar robberies back in 2014.  As the defendant was a repeat offender, the sentencing Judge applied an enhancement of 15 months to each of the five robbery offences for his persistent offending, and imposed a total sentence of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. 

7.  The defendant was discharged from prison on 9 April 2022 and within about a month and a half, he committed the present offences.

8.  There is no mitigation that can be meaningfully advanced on the defendant’s behalf except for his pleas of guilty.

Sentence

9.  When sentencing the defendant in 2014 in HCCC 307/2014, Zervos J (as he then was)  observed:

“A repeat offender must expect, and will usually receive, an enhanced sentence for his continued attitude of disobedience of the law. An enhanced sentence is not given as an additional punishment for previous offences for which the offender has already been punished, but for the aggravating factor of his repeated offending where previous sentences have not deterred him and hence he poses as a danger to the community. As a repeat offender, the defendant stands before this court familiar with the criminal processes for offences of this type and therefore more culpable and more likely to recidivate. This warrants the imposition of condign punishment.”

10.  For each of the two present offences, the defendant stalked a female victim when she was alone and vulnerable in a lift lobby or corridor in a private residential building and he applied force on her person and forcefully grabbed her handbag or bag.  In the first robbery, the defendant even put a cloth with thinner on the victim’s face which caused her pain in her eyes and mild erythema on her face.  With these factors in mind, I would use a starting point of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for the 1^st charge and a starting point of 4 years and 3 months’ imprisonment for the 2^nd charge, both of which I would enhance by 18 months for his persistent offending to reflect the increased culpability for the crimes he has committed.  

11.  By virtue of the guilty pleas, the enhanced starting point of 6 years for the 1^st charge will be reduced by one-third to 4 years’ imprisonment, whereas the enhanced starting point of 5 years and 9 months for the 2^nd charge will be reduced to 3 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.  Taking into account the totality principle, I would order 18 months of the sentence of the 2^nd charge to be served consecutively to the sentence for the 1^st charge, making a total sentence of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

12.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and 6 months.

Exhibits

13.  Order in terms of the Prosecution’s application, not objected to by the Defence, was granted.