HKSAR v. TANVEER HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER

DCCC378/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 378 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendants have each been convicted of one offence of robbery.

2.  The details of the offence are set out in my verdict and I do not propose to rehearse that in any detail today, save to say that in my finding, I found that I agreed with the

(1) the robbery occurred late on the evening of
21 February 2011;

(2) that the defendants acted jointly;

(3) that the robbery occurred at the exit of a subway in Sheung Shui;

(4) that it was committed by the 1st defendant grabbing her about her body and shouting in her ear and picking the phone up;

(5) and the 2nd defendant standing close by to lend assistance, if necessary, and also to act as a lookout, and then being active in the, as it were, disposal of the phone or the movement of the phone from one defendant to the other.

3.  So this puts the robbery close to or into that category that is often described as a snatching.

4.  It was distressing to the young lady, but fortunately, resulted in no injuries to her, save for the shock she might have felt at this happening.

5.  The defendants are Pakistani nationals and have been in Hong Kong from around 2007.

6.  I have seen their antecedents.

7.  The 1st defendant’s antecedents show that in that time he has been convicted on two separate occasions:  firstly for using an identity card and theft, for which he would have received a total of 20 months’ imprisonment, and then later a fine in 2010 for possession of a dangerous drug, and so this robbery will constitute a third within the time he has been here, so he has a poor record considering how long he has been here.

8.  The 2nd defendant is a person of clear record.

9.  Now, as far as their backgrounds are concerned,

10.  The 1st defendant is a 28-year-old man from Central Pakistan.  In Hong Kong, he is here and resides here under the basis that he is making a torture claim and that is currently being processed.  As I said, he arrived in 2007, lives with his uncle in Fanling.  He has a wider family; he has both brothers and sisters and has been married since 2001.  All his family live in Pakistan.

11.  The 2nd defendant is also a native of Pakistan, been here since 2007.  He lives in Sham Shui Po.  He is also a person making a torture claim.  He has high school education.

12.  In this case, he rather unusually admitted a part in the offence and was prepared to indicate at all times that he was guilty of theft, that the basis on which he would make his admission was at odds with the account given by the first prosecution witness, and how I have dealt with that is clear in my judgment, but in any event, the defendant is remorseful and has always been prepared to admit at least a role in this crime.

13.  In sentencing, I have been referred to various authorities in terms of sentencing.

14.  This is what one could describe as an unarmed robbery, where starting points for sentence can range as high as 4 years’ imprisonment, but this falls into a category that is often described as “snatching”, where a brief imposition of violence occurs, causing the victim to lose their property, and here the violence was the holding of the victim.

15.  It is common ground that starting points for these kind of robberies can range more from 15 months’ imprisonment to 2 years’ imprisonment.

16.  Considering all the factors relevant to sentence, I do believe this robbery falls into this category.

17.  The defendants pleaded not guilty and there is nothing that I would describe as exceptional in the mitigation they put forward.  I note the 2nd defendant has a clear record.

18.  I see no reason, in fact, in their cases to depart from what I would describe as a the normal starting point for sentence.

19.  So on this charge I will impose a sentence on the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant of 2 years’ imprisonment.