HKSAR v. RAHEEL SHABAZ

DCCC 1142/2021

[2022] HKDC 1189

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1142 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

Charges

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery. 

The Facts

2.  At around 04:54 am on 6 October 2021, when PW1 (aged 68)  walked to the junction of Nam Cheong street and Yee Kuk Street, the defendant snatched his waist bag from behind and fled away.

3.  Inside the bag, there was HK$10 and a mobile phone.

4.  CCTV captured the incident that the defendant was riding a bicycle and followed PW1.  When he alighted from bicycle and approached PW1 from behind, the images showed that there was a struggle between them, PW1 fell onto the ground on his knees with both hands pressed onto the ground.

5.  The Defendant was arrested next day when the police spotted him riding the same bicycle and wearing the same pair of shoes in Sham Shui Po.

6.  In the record of interview, the Defendant admitted that he was the person riding the bicycle as shown in the CCTV, but denied snatching from PW1.

Criminal record

7.  The Defendant had one previous record of allowing object to fall from height in 2018. 

Mitigation

8.  The Defendant is now 32 years old, came from Pakistan to Hong Kong in 2016.  He is currently living with his uncle in Sham Shui Po. 

9.  He is a Form 8 holder and supported by ISS for living.

10.  He has been remanded for one year and 2 weeks since the date of the offence.

11.  The Defendant submitted that the appropriate sentence would be about 3 years, relying on the authority of HKSAR v Ku Kwok Wai [2012] 4 HKLRD 563. 

Sentence

12.  I agree with the defence that this is not a case fall within the HKSAR v Mo Kwong Sang[1] type of offence which involved the use of a knife or other dangerous weapons.

13.  As said in HKSAR v Ting Chui & Other[2], the Court of Appeal considered that the appropriate starting point for an unarmed robbery should be lower than the kind of robbery in Mo Kwong Sang.

14.  As stated by the defence with reference to the case of Ku Kwok Wai that the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence from a starting point of 3 years 3 months in view of the fact that:-

(a)  The victim was confronted by only one robber

(b)  No weapon was used

(c)  The robbery was committed in a public place

(d)  The violence used against the victim was a push at the back which did not result from any injuries.

15.  In the present case, there are obvious similarities except that:-

(a)  The item being snatched was a waist bag, not an iPhone.

(b)  The victim held onto his waist bag while the defendant was determined to snatch it from him.

(c)  This morning I was told that the victim was in fact on his way to see his friend with a hope to get a part time job as a clearer. That explained why there was such a struggle between the two of them.

(d)  On the other hand, the defendant clearly was expecting some cash inside the bag, he would not know until he opened the bag that his target was in fact a poor man, he only had $10 with him and one mobile phone.

(e)  The victim in the present case was 68 years at the time of offence. He is not as young as the victim (aged 17)  in the case of Ku Kwok Wai.

(f)  I can see from the CCTV that his walking gait was slow and he appeared to be fragile, I am sure that the defendant also noticed this when he approached the victim.

(g)  As we all know, old age comes with health issues such as osteoporosis. The fall of the victim may or may not cause fracture to his bones. It was fortunate that he did not suffer any injuries.

(h)  It was early in the morning, at 4:54 am, the street was quiet without pedestrian. The Defendant was riding a bicycle when the snatching took place. Clearly, the defendant could run away from the scene quicker than the victim. The victim was left without any help from nearby shops or pedestrian. The victim was vulnerable to this kind of cowardly attack visited upon him by the defendant. It all goes to show premeditation of the commission of crime.

16.  Finally, I was told in mitigation just now that the defendant committed the offence for fun.  With all this information in mind and having seen the CCTV, I rejected the defendant’s assertion completely. 

17.  To this end, I consider that the appropriate starting point is 3 years 6 months. 

18.  Now, it remains for me to consider the fact that the defendant was a Form 8 holder.

19.  Today, the defence submitted to me 2 further authorities of the level of enhancement in robbery and attempted robbery case:-

a. HKSAR v Singh Gursevak [2019] 2 HKLRD 274

b. HKSAR v Nguyen Thanh Phong DCCC 845/2021

20.  I have the opportunity to read these 2 cases.  This Court has to consider the serious nature of the present case, I accepted that there was no use of weapon in the course of snatching of the waist bag from the victim, but the incident must have left the victim with an impact of anxiety and shock. 

21.  Whether there was a great lost to the victim was a matter of relativity, albeit I noted that it was $10 and a mobile phone. 

22.  Nevertheless, there is no guideline as to the level of enhancement of sentence, the purpose of enhancement of sentence was to deter the defendant from committing any further offence.  If the enhancement of sentence is too low, clearly, it will lose its effect of deterrent value. 

23.  I therefore consider that an additional 6 months is appropriate. 

24.  The total sentence is now 4 years.  Given 1/3 discount, it comes down to 2 years and 8 months.