HKSAR v. CHAN WANG HO

HCCC 196/2025
[2025] HKCFI 5696
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO 196 OF 2025
________________________
HKSAR
v
CHAN WANG HO (陳宏浩)
Defendant
________________________
Before:
The Honourable Mr. Justice D. Yau in Court
Date of Hearing:
19 November 2025
Date of Sentence:
19 November 2025
Date of Reasons for Sentence:
19 November 2025
________________________
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
________________________
1.
The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempted robbery
[1]
before Magistrate Mr. Kestrel Lam and was committed, on 5 June 2025, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Before me, the defendant confirmed his guilty plea and admission to the Summary of Facts and his conviction was duly recorded.
2.
Particulars of the charge are that the defendant on 5 June, 2024, at “Yick Fu Money Exchange”, Shop D, Ground Floor, Longfield Centre, Nos. 129-131 Castle Peak Road, Yuen Long, attempted to rob DU Jianhua.
FACTS
3.
Ms. Du was a staff of Yick Fu Money Exchange.  At around 7pm on the charge date, while working alone, she saw the defendant entered the shop, holding a can of lighter fluid and a lighter in his hands, poured some of the lighter fluid onto the counter and said, “Take out the money, take out the money, otherwise I will light a fire, quick”
[2]
.
4.
Ms. Du was scared and pressed the security alarm, whereupon the defendant immediately fled.  Ms. Du cleaned up the fluid while waiting for the police to arrive.
5.
The incident as well as the defendant’s escape were captured on CCTV footages.  They show that the defendant had changed his clothes in Yuen Long Plaza before returning to his home in Tin Shui Wai.  With the footages, the police was able to identify and locate the defendant.
6.
At around 4:18pm on 7 June 2024, the defendant was arrested for attempted robbery at Shui Lam House, Tin Shui Estate in Tin Shui Wai.  The defendant admitted under caution that he had robbed the shop and had thrown away the clothes he was wearing at the time, together with the container holding the lighter fluid into a rubbish bin.
7.
A video recorded interview was conducted on the same day of his arrest.  Under caution, the defendant claimed that he had gone from home to the vicinity of Tung Lok Street at around 7pm on 5 June, wandering and waiting for the right time to rob the shop.
8.
He admitted to having thrown some lighter fluid on to the counter, but said he only meant to threaten the staff there and did not light up the fluid with the lighter that was in his hand.  He left when the staff told him she had called the police.  He went to Yuen Long Plaza to change into new clothes that he had brought with him in his backpack.  The defendant then took the Light Rail home.  He had thrown away the old clothes into a rubbish bin on the fourth or fifth floor of Shui Lam House.
9.
He claimed to have committed the offence because of financial difficulties.  He bought the lighter fluid from a hardware store in Tin Shui Market but he had forgotten when.  He confirmed he was the person seen in the CCTV footages shown to him, and that the police had seized his clothes that he had changed into after the attempted robbery, and the sneakers that he wore while committing the offence.
PREVIOUS CONVICTION
10.
The defendant was of previously clear record.
BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION
11.
The defendant was born in Hong Kong in December 1991 and is going to be 34 soon.  He was educated up to Form 5 level and had been working as a delivery worker from 2016 to 2020. He was residing with his family in Tin Shui Estate before the offence.
12.
Mr. Foster Yim, counsel for the defendant, told the court that the defendant’s father had passed away when the defendant was 18 years old.  The defendant was living with his mother, younger sister and two foster children under his mother’s care.  His younger sister has since relocated to Taiwan to pursue her studies.
13.
The defendant has a good relationship with the foster children and helped care for them.  He used to work part-time at a supermarket to help out with family finances when still at school.  After finishing Form 5, the defendant had worked as a warehouse worker, delivery truck driver and apprentice plasterer.
14.
After failed investments, the defendant was about $400,000 in debt.  Despite working multiple part-time jobs, he was unable to keep up with repayments, which led to mental stress and ultimately this lapse in judgment.  He deeply regrets the harm his actions had caused his family, in particular the foster children who regard him as their elder brother and rely on him greatly.
15.
Mr. Yim submits that while the defendant did plan the robbery, it was neither complex nor sophisticated and he acted alone.  The defendant is obviously not a professional robber.  He was driven by economic hardship and emotional distress.  No violence was used against anyone.  The defendant fully cooperated with police investigations and is repentant in his attitude.  There is a low risk of re-offending and wishes the court to allow him an opportunity for early reintegration, and to continue to contribute to his family and society.
SENTENCING
16.
The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for robbery, and attempted robbery, is that of life imprisonment.
17.
In the case of
Mo Kwong-sang v R
[1981] HKLR 610; CACC 359/1981, the Court of Appeal laid down the following general guidelines that are relevant to our case:
“In imposing sentence little account should be given to the previously clear record of anyone who takes part in an armed robbery.
1. The appropriate sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery where the accused carried a knife or other dangerous weapon (excluding firearms)  which he displayed to his victim, should be five years’ imprisonment.
2. If such a robbery also involves an invasion of private premises, a sentence of six years would be appropriate.
3. If physical violence, including tying victims up, is used, a sentence of seven years should be considered.
4. If other aggravating factors are present, such as invasions of domestic premises during the night, threats made to victims, ill-treatment of victims, multiplicity of offences of a similar kind or more than one person taking part in the robbery, the sentence should be increased.”
18.
In the case of
HKSAR v Yip Hoi Kei
[2005] 2 HKLRD 165; CACC 311/2004, the target of the robbery was a post office, which usually held a large amount of cash.  The applicant and another person had forced their way into a post office when the person responsible for opening up was preparing to open the door.  Throughout the robbery, the applicant was holding an extensible rod which he used to threaten that staff member.  The applicant was 16 at the time of the robbery.
19.
The Court considered that, while not as serious as robbery on a bank or a jewellery shop, robbing a post office is more serious than street robberies and warranted a heavier sentence, and that the guidelines laid down in
Mo Kwong Sang
applied to the usual types of robbery.
20.
The rationale behind the heavier sentence is that a less serious sentence would send out the wrong message, encouraging others to rob post offices or other similar institutions where large amount of cash would be kept.  A more serious sentence is required to deter, and the 8 years starting point adopted by the trial judge was found to be appropriate.
21.
In the case of
HKSAR v CHU Kwok Yui
(朱國銳), CACC 389/2009, the applicant carried a 10-inch knife in his hand and two bottles of thinner in his shoulder bag and entered a betting centre at about 11:30pm when it was closed for business.  He placed the knife at the neck of a staff member after the security guard failed to stop him, and declared robbery, claiming he had a bomb with him.  The applicant then smashed the two bottles of thinner by throwing them at a counter.  He then pointed the knife at another staff member.
22.
The staff members struggled with the applicant.  They were still struggling when the police arrived.  In the end, 4 staff members were injured, 2 quite seriously, one of them with a 4% permanent disability although the trial judge did not place much reliance on that.
23.
The applicant was arrested, and he claimed under caution that he had to rob the betting centre because he owed the bank over $1 million.  He also claimed later that he had no intention to rob, and he just wanted to be jailed since he was unable to repay his debt.
24.
In mitigation, the Court was told that the applicant had to support his retired parents, wife and son, and had resorted to borrowing on his 8 credit cards and heavily mortgaging his flat since his income was insufficient to make ends meet.  He had once withdrawn $200,000 to help his son start a computer shop but it was a total failure.  He claimed to be in a desperate position when the loans were called.
25.
It was put forward in mitigation that the offence was committed when the applicant was under grave financial difficulty and confused, leading to him taking the risk of robbing the betting centre, while actually preparing to be caught.
26.
The Court found that, whatever the cause of the applicant’s financial difficulties and personal circumstances and however tragic, they are not excuses for committing serious offences such as robbery with the use of a knife and bottles of thinner, claiming that it was a bomb.
27.
The Court found that the offence was of such a nature that a deterrent sentence was called for even for a first offender, but that a more appropriate starting point was that of 10 years’ imprisonment instead of 12 that the was adopted by the trial judge.
28.
In Mr. Yim’s submissions, he referred to two cases.  The first is the case of
HKSAR v Leung Tsz-chung and another
[2023] HKCFI 3372
; HCCC 310/2020.  There the defendants conspired to rob someone entering Hong Kong from mainland China carrying over US$1.68 million.  In sentencing, the learned trial judge found that it was a well-conceived conspiracy involving substantial planning, and the recruitment of 4 men, provision of transportation and weaponry, including stun gun devices, beef knives, a hammer and a screwdriver, enough for all co-conspirators to brandish as planned.  There were 2 vehicles, one with false plates and two cans of thinner, which were likely to be used to set the vehicles on fire to destroy all evidence after the robbery.  A starting point of 5 years was adopted, which was then enhanced to 7 years for there being 4 robbers all with access to weapons, and then to 8 years for the amount of money to be robbed, and then to 9 years to take into account that the vehicle used by the robbers would have been used to force the taxi that the targeted victim was in off the road, at which point the driver of the taxi as well as the victims would have been subjected to as big an ordeal or trauma or fright as those robbed in private premises or late at night.
29.
The other case that Mr. Yim referred to is
HKSAR v Chan Hon Fu
(陳漢富)  HCCC 498/2015.  There the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempted robbery.  Facts are that he entered the bank at 9am and held a knife towards the bank teller and declared robbery, telling her to take out all the money, or else he will light the fire.  Police arrived 10 minutes later and ordered the defendant to put down the knife and raise his hands.  The defendant complied and was handcuffed.  Another 10-inch knife was found in his backpack, together with a lighter in his trousers pocket. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he had bought two bottles of thinner liquid and broke them and poured the liquid onto the floor of the bank that day, and then took out his knife to threaten the teller.
30.
Mo Kwong Sang
was applied and a starting point of 6 years was adopted for the defendant’s pointing the knife at the teller.  1 year was added to this starting point for the pouring of the thinner liquid and the threat to light a fire, taking it to 7 years.
31.
Since it was mentioned in mitigation that the defendant had suffered from depression and suicidal ideation, reports were prepared and in the end a 2 year reduction was granted on this basis, resulting in a final sentence of 3 years 4 months’ imprisonment in that case.
THE PRESENT CASE
32.
First of all, I find the case of
Leung Tsz-chung
relied on by Mr. Yim not particularly helpful given the very different factual circumstances of the commission of the offence.  Whereas in the case of
Chan Hon Fu
, despite the unique personal circumstances of the defendant, there are similarities in the robbery and is of some assistance.
33.
A money exchange shop is a place where large amount of cash would be kept.  As such, the case of
Yip Hon Kei
applies and there is a need to enhance the sentence for deterrence.
34.
The defendant had poured thinner liquid onto the counter and threatened Ms. Du while holding a lighter which was visible to her.  As the facts stated, she was scared, and one can imagine to a rather serious degree given the fact that the shop is just a corner shop with a small counter and a panel of glass between the defendant and her, as can be seen in the photos.
35.
I find, however, that the facts here are slightly less serious than those in
Yip Hon Kei
in that two robbers were involved in that case.
36.
I find the facts are considerably less serious than those in
Chu Kwok Yui
, in that there a knife was held against the staff member, there was threat of a bomb, and two staff members were injured when they struggled with the defendant.
37.
Taking all matters into consideration, I find that a proper starting point is that of 7 years’imprisonment.  This sentence is sufficient to reflect the culpability of the defendant as well as ensure that others are deterred from following suit.
38.
The full one-third discount 
	is granted for the defendant’s timely guilty plea, and he is sentenced to 56 
	months, or 4 years 8 months’ imprisonment.
>
(Douglas Yau)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
of the High Court
Mr. Marcus LEE, SPP of Department of Justice, for the Prosecution/ HKSAR
Mr. Foster YIM, instructed by Messrs. Robinsons, Lawyers, assigned by D.L.A. for the defendant
[1]
Contrary to section 10(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200
[2]
“攞錢嚟，攞錢嚟，唔係我就點火，快啲”