HKSAR v. LEUNG HO LUN

DCCC 977/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 977 OF 2013

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  Leung Ho Lun you have pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 200.

2.  In summary at about 21:20 on the 31 August this year Miss Lam was sitting inside the sitting-out area near the junction of Nathan Road and Boundary Street when you tried to grab her iPad Mini.  You pressed against Miss Lam’s neck and shoulder in an attempt to get her to let go of the iPad Mini.  Miss Lam shouted out robbery which alerted her boyfriend, Mr Au who was smoking nearby.  Mr Au pulled you away at which time the police arrived and arrested you.  Under caution you admitted snatching the iPad Mini because you were in need of money.

3.  In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on your behalf by Mr Tam, including that this was an opportunistic robbery with no injuries caused to Miss Lam.   

4.  No knife or weapon having been used the proper basis for sentence is that which is appropriate for an unarmed robbery.  The starting point for unarmed robbery is generally no more than 4 years imprisonment, see for example R v Yau Kwok Tung [1987] HKLR 782 as applied in HKSAR v Ting Chiu[2003] 3 HKLRD 378.

5.  Whilst each case is decided upon its own particular facts and circumstances I would refer to two cases, which have some similarities to the present case.  First, in HKSAR v Lam Ka Hung CACC 294/2003, a 57 year old female was walking home in the early evening when her handbag was snatched on the 3rd floor of where she lived.  After the lady’s shoulder was pressed down a struggle ensued resulting in the lady falling to the ground and sustaining a minor abrasion to one of her fingers.  The Court of Appeal, noting the defendant had eleven previous convictions although none for either robbery or violence, said a 4 year starting point was appropriate.

6.  Second in HKSAR v Ku Kwok-wai & another CACC 14/2012 the defendants, who were 21 and 22 and of clear records, forcefully snatched an iPhone from a 17 year old female student in the early hours of the morning.  The force used was a push in the back by one of the defendants whilst the other defendant acted as a lookout. The female suffered no injuries.  The Court of Appeal agreeing this was a step-up from a theft or snatching upheld a starting point of 3 years and 3 months imprisonment.

7.  As in that case I am satisfied the present case is also a “step up from a theft or snatching” by reason of the fact when Miss Lam would not let go of her iPad Mini you pressed against Miss Lam’s neck and shoulder in an attempt to take the iPad Mini.

8.  You do not have a clear record having multiple convictions including twenty offences of dishonesty.  The last conviction was for an offence of shoplifting committed on the 24 August this year for which you were sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, a sentence you have now served.  Albeit the dishonesty offences are mostly for shoplifting you are properly to be regarded as a persistent offender.  Further you committed the robbery whilst on bail for that shoplifting offence.  The commission of offences on bail is an aggravating feature of sentence.

9.  Whilst in Ku Kwok Wai there were two robbers the courtobserved that from the perspective of the victim she would have only been aware of the presence of one robber.  Taking into account you acted alone and that no injuries were sustained by Miss Lam I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial is 3 years and 3 months imprisonment which, by reason of the aggravating features that you are a persistent offender and the robbery was committed whilst you were on bail, I increase by 6 months to 3 years and 9 months. 

10.  Giving you full credit for your plea of guilty you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.