HKSAR v. LO PING KEUNG

DCCC 252/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 252 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

2.  The particulars are that on 12 November 2012, the defendant robbed a victim of her Smartphone in her shop in Cheung Sha Wan, Kowloon.  The facts of the case are straightforward.  At about 4.30 on that particular day, the victim was minding her shop when the defendant entered and approached her.  He half crouched beside her and pointed a pair of scissors at her waist. He declared robbery.  Whilst she pretended to get money from her drawer, she grabbed a pair of scissors and a stapler to defend herself, in other words she fought back.  The defendant panicked, dropped the scissors and ran but not before he snatched her mobile phone from her counter.  The victim chased the defendant out into the street and there were other passers-by who assisted in the chase.  The defendant was subdued after a short period of time and the victim’s phone was recovered.

3.  Defendant made an admission upon caution.  He told the police he did not have any money so he went inside to rob.  PW1, the victim, did suffer a minor injury to her left middle finger but there is no evidence this was inflicted by the defendant.  The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty.

4.  Defendant is 44 years old and is not a man of clear record.  He has nine previous convictions of which two are similar.  He was convicted of robbery in 1985 and 1994.  His last offence was in the year 2008 where he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and released in April 2009.  Prior to this offence he had not been convicted of an offence for 3½ years.  I have been told by Mr Poon the reason is because the defendant had after his release from prison met a girlfriend and began to cohabit with her in 2010 and a son was born in June 2011.  The defendant was trying to turn over a new leaf, not rely on a life of crime and support his family financially by working.  Sadly, after about six months their relationship turned sour and the defendant’s girlfriend left their home.  Not only did she leave the defendant, she left the defendant with their six month old son.  With the responsibility of childcare, the defendant could not work and had to rely on CSSA public assistance.

5.  In the background report I called for, his elder sister does mention the fact that since he had to live on CSSA to look after his son, he then encountered much financial difficulty.  He had financial difficulty to pay even his rent and food.  She is of the opinion that it was this that drove him to commit this offence.  It seems it was not just a financial burden that defendant faced, it was also an emotional burden.  He told the Probation officer that he knew what he was doing was serious and that he might get caught.  He only wanted to rob the victim of her mobile phone.  He said he did not mind if he was caught because he was so overburdened with financial and childcare problems.  I was told on the last occasion that the defendant was very worried about his son’s welfare, not only his day to day care but the fact was as far as the defendant knows, his son has no birth certificate which could have huge repercussions as the child grows older. 

6.  On the last occasion I adjourned for two reports, a background report and a Social Welfare officer’s report.  I was hoping the Social Welfare officer could either assist or help this child, particularly to make sure the child had proper care but also was able to arrange a birth certificate.  It seems that the child is now with his biological mother but the family are clearly reluctant to give any further details.  I do not intend to repeat the details of the report but I considered the contents.  I have also considered mitigation put forward by Mr Poon. Mr Poon has tried his utmost to mitigate on behalf of the defendant but Mr Poon’s hands are tied by an authority and Mr Poon has said the defendant is well-aware of the sentencing guidelines set out in this authority.

7.  I refer to Mo Kwong Sang v R [1981] HKLR 610.  That authority gives some guidelines for an appropriate sentence for robbery.  The appropriate sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery where the accused carried a knife or other dangerous weapon, which would include a pair of scissors but exclude firearms, which the robber displays to his victim would attract a term of imprisonment of 5 years.  That authority sets out other aggravating factors that would increase that sentence.  There are no aggravating factors in this case. 

8.  I do take into account that the defendant although did point scissors at the victim, when the victim retaliated defendant was quick to drop the pair of scissors and run.  I take into account it is the defendant’s third conviction for robbery, however, the other two were some time ago.

9.  Defendant, please stand up.  Having considered the facts of the case, the authorities that have been referred to, the defendant’s mitigation, I will follow that authority and take a starting point of 5 years.  Defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third for his plea. Accordingly, for this offence the defendant is sentenced to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.