HKSAR v. AISHPREET SINGH

DCCC 596/2018

[2019] HKDC 471

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 596 OF 2018

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

Charge

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to one count of assault with intent to rob.

Facts

2.  On 11 April 2018, about noon, one Mr Chen, aged 42, went to a currency exchange shop in Yuen Long.  He changed some Renminbi into HK$84,054.  He put the money into his backpack.

3.  The defendant and another man suspected to be of South Asian descent (the “Wanted Person”) followed Chen.  Outside No 150 to 160 of Castle Peak Road, the two attacked Chen with bare hands and pulled his backpack.  Chen shouted for help.  The defendant and his accomplice however persisted in assaulting Chen and tried to take his backpack.

4.  Passers-by came to Chen’s assistance.  They caught the defendant after the latter had run for about 50 metres.  The Wanted Person escaped.

5.  Chen was injured.  There was a 1-cm laceration on his left parietal scalp and some abrasion on his left parietal scalp as well.

6.  In court, the defendant admits he assaulted Chen with the Wanted Person in order to rob Chen.

Record

7.  The defendant is a national of India.  He was born on 1 January 1998.  He came to Hong Kong four to five years ago at the age of 16.  He is a non-refoulement protection seeker.  Defence counsel says the Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected the defendant’s claim in July last year.  The defendant has yet to decide whether he would seek judicial review of that decision.  The defendant has no previous record in Hong Kong.

Mitigation

8.  Defence counsel says the defendant came to Hong Kong alone to seek protection.  He has parents and an elder sister in India.  The defendant was only a secondary school student when he came to Hong Kong.  He was not an experienced person.  He would be easily influenced by others.

9.  Defence counsel says the defendant was keen to make friends in Hong Kong.  He came to know the Wanted Person four to five months before the offence.  The Wanted Person was a few years older than the defendant.  On the day in question, the Wanted Person lured the defendant to come out, saying he needed the defendant’s assistance in a fight.  When the defendant arrived, the Wanted Person asked the defendant if he wanted to make some easy money.  Defence counsel says the defendant had been living on tight budget since he had arrived in Hong Kong, so he was tempted by the suggestion of the Wanted Person.

10.  The defendant and the Wanted Person kept Chen under surveillance for two to three minutes before the latter went into the currency exchange shop.  After Chen had come out of the shop, the defendant and the Wanted Person followed him for a distance and then tried to rob him.

11.  Defence counsel says the defendant at that time did not know how much money Chen had in his backpack.  The defendant just hit Chen, but he did not specifically target at his head.  Defence counsel says the Wanted Person also assaulted Chen.

12.  Defence counsel points out that Chen was not seriously injured.  The money was also recovered.

13.  Defence counsel submits that there is no sentencing guideline for this kind of robbery offences, which did not involve the use of any weapon.  She mentioned the case of Ting Chiu [2003] 3 HKLR 378 to say that 4 years’ imprisonment would be the maximum starting point in this type of cases.

14.  Defence counsel submits that, in the defendant’s situation, a lower starting point would be sufficient due to the said mitigation factors.  She also says the defendant was young when he committed the offence and he is now really remorseful for what he did.  Defence counsel hands up a letter written by the defendant.  In that letter, the defendant expresses his remorse and pleads for leniency.

15.  Defence counsel says, although the defendant is a Form 8 holder, he did not come to Hong Kong to commit crimes.  The defendant had been a law-abiding person in Hong Kong for a few years before he committed the current offence.

16.  Defence counsel asks the court to be lenient towards the defendant and give him full credit for his genuine plea of guilt and remorse.

Sentence

17.  The present offence was street robbery without the use of any weapons. The defendant and his accomplice, the Wanted Person, used bare hands to assault the victim.  The victim suffered minor injuries.  He was treated and discharged from the hospital.  However, when he was assaulted at that time, he must have been scared a lot.

18.  Even accepting defence counsel’s mitigation that the defendant only knew of the Wanted Person’s suggestion when the defendant arrived at the scene, the offence cannot be said to be an opportunistic crime.  The defendant, at his age of 20 at that time, should walk away from the Wanted Person.  Instead, he followed the Wanted Person’s words.  The two tailed the victim and then assaulted the victim with intent to rob him.

19.  I accept that the defendant might not know at that time how much money Chen had in his backpack.  However, that is not a significant consideration. The defendant and the Wanted Person certainly wanted to take as much as they could from Chen, who came out of the currency exchange shop.

20.  I accept defence counsel’s saying that, although the defendant was a Form 8 holder, that is not an aggravating factor.  After all, he had a clear record in Hong Kong.  He was only 20 when he committed the offence.

21.  The defendant says in his mitigation letter that he was pressurised by the Wanted Person to commit the crime.  In court, defence counsel clarifies that the defendant actually means he felt he had to listen to the words of the Wanted Person.  The defendant was persuaded by the Wanted Person rather than pressurised.

22.  I accept defence counsel’s saying that the Wanted Person should be regarded as the more culpable character in the present offence, being the instigator. 

23.  There was no weapon used.  The victim was only slightly injured.  The money was recovered.  The defendant was remorseful.  He was only 20 when he committed the offence under the instigation and persuasion of the Wanted Person.  The defendant had no previous record.

24.  I adopt 3½ years’ imprisonment as the starting point.  The defendant pleads guilty at the earliest opportunity.  I give him the full one-third discount for his plea.  He is thus sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment.