HKSAR v. THAPA MILAN KUMAR

DCCC 935/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 935 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. This is a case of handbag snatching. The defendant, a Nepalese, pleaded guilty before me to one count of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance.

2. On the day of the offence, at around 11 o’clock in the morning, the defendant approached from behind a 45-year-old lady who was walking along a lane in Yuen Long on her way to work and tried to snatch her handbag from her.  A tug of war over the handbag ensued between the robber and the victim, and during which the victim fell and was dragged along the ground for some distance while the victim was trying to hang onto the handbag.  Eventually, the robber snatched the handbag and fled. 

3. Some passers-by happened to be passing at the time of the robbery and helped catch the robber.  The victim recovered her handbag which had her wallet, one mobile phone, four bank cards, one cosmetic bag, one coin bag, cash of $2,075 and cash of 800 Renminbi in it.

4. The matter was reported to the police and the defendant was later arrested.  Under caution, he said he robbed because he had no money. 

5. As a result of the robbery, the victim sustained injuries which include tenderness and deformity over her left elbow and multiple abrasions over her right knee, right ankle and left big toe.

6. X-ray examination of her left elbow revealed dislocation of the joint and bone fracture of the left radial head.

7. The defendant, aged 36, is a person of previous good character.  He is married with a 9-year-old daughter.  The court was told that the defendant had been working in his entire life.  At the time of the offence he was employed as a security guard at a plaza earning 16,000 a month. He will lose his job, counsel says, because of the offence. 

8. It is admitted by defence counsel that the injuries sustained by the victim were serious, but the defendant had no intention to cause them.  “It was not the kind of violence inflicted by kicking; it was just grabbing the handbag”, counsel said. 

9. Counsel also said that the robbery was committed in broad daylight, no weapon used and it was done by the defendant alone, and asked the court to treat it as coming close to the lower end of the scale. 

10. Robbery is a serious offence because force is used in the course of stealing.  And in the instant case, the force that the defendant used caused injuries to the victim, and those injuries cannot be described as minor. 

11. Taking into account all the mitigation advanced including clean record of the defendant, I take 3½ years as starting point, reduce it by one-third to reflect his plea, and I see nothing for further reduction of the sentence.  The defendant is therefore sentenced to a term of 2 years and 4 months.