HKSAR v. CHAN CHI KIN

DCCC 488/2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 488 OF 2016

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Robbery". He robbed an elderly lady (aged 89) in the corridor of a restaurant.

Summary of Facts

2.  Garden Restaurant ("the Restaurant") is situated at Kwai Hing Shopping Centre, No.2 Wo Kwai Lane, Kwai Chung ("the Mall").

3.  About 10:00 a.m. on 26 March 2016, Madam CHU (PW1; aged 89) was in the Restaurant walking along the corridor which leads from the female toilet to the main entrance.  She had a handbag (E1) with her and carried it by wearing its shoulder strap diagonally from her right shoulder to her left waist.  In the course of proceeding down the corridor, PW1 noticed the defendant looking at her.

4.  Suddenly, the defendant pushed the left arm of PW1 with both hands, causing her to lose balance and fall on the floor outside VIP Room No.1.  PW1 fell on her back and bumped against the rear right side of her head.  The defendant then dropped a green shopping bag, which he was holding with his left hand, on the floor; yanked E1 off PW1's shoulder; and fled.  At that time, E1 contained cash in the sum of $500; a coin purse; a Hong Kong Identity Card; a Senior Citizen Card; an Elderly Octopus Card; a female wristwatch; and some miscellaneous papers.  All those items belonged to PW1.

5.  PW1 screamed for help and the Police was alerted.  Upon medical examination, PW1 was found to have tenderness and haematoma in the occipital scalp region.

6.  About 11:30 a.m. on the same day, PC 7947 found E1 in the Ground Floor male toilet of the Mall.  Except the $500 cash, all items contained in E1 were still in there.  The green shopping bag carried by the defendant was also found near the VIP Room, outside which PW1 fell.

7.  The CCTV footage of the Restaurant captured the defendant walking past PW1 twice; pushing her; and running away via the rear staircase with E1 in his possession.

8.  The defendant was located by the Police in the same afternoon.  Under caution, he admitted having bumped into PW1 and picking up a bag which fell on the floor to see if there was any money inside for his mother's medical fees.  In his video recorded interview, the defendant claimed that he was at the Restaurant looking for a debtor.  He bumped into PW1 and mistakenly took her bag because he was in a hurry to pursue his debtor.

Mitigation & Sentence

9.  The defendant is 51 and divorced. He has 12 conviction records, which included 8 theft-related offences and several drug-related offences.  Defence counsel Mr. CHENG informed me that the defendant resides with his mother; both of them rely on social welfare.  A medical report on the defendant was placed before me.  In gist, the defendant has various problems with his left eye, causing him particularly weak vision on his left eye.

10.  In mitigation, Mr. CHENG submitted that the robbery was not pre-planned.  At the time of the offence, the defendant was under the influence of ICE, and was in fact in a hurry to chase after his debtor ("Ah B").  He did not deny the offence completely in his video recorded interview.  Mr. CHENG further submitted that when the defendant saw PW1 in the course of pursuing Ah B, a sinister and greedy intent formed suddenly.  Owing to his eye problem and the influence of ICE, the defendant did not fully appreciate the age of PW1.  He is now truly remorseful.

11.  Time after time, the court has expressed in very clear terms that being in financial difficulty (however serious) is no mitigating factor for committing a crime.  A clear message must be conveyed to the general public that robbery is a dead serious crime and that the offenders would most certainly be punished by long-term imprisonment.

12.   According to the Court of Appeal's decision in HKSAR v ON Ling CACC 386/2004, the present case should not be regarded as an armed robbery; the sentencing guidelines stipulated in MO Kwong-sang v The Queen [1981] HKLR 610 are thus not appropriate.

13.   The most atrocious element in the present case is the age of PW1. Pushing an 89-year-old lady and making her fall on the floor could easily cause her serious permanent injuries or even death. It is most fortunate that PW1 was not seriously injured and was discharged from the hospital on the same day. Furthermore, the $500 cash could have been PW1's livelihood for the week or month. It is also fortunate that all the identity documents contained in E1 were recovered, which spared PW1 the trouble of applying for replacements.

14.   I have reminded myself of the Court of Appeal's decision in HKSAR v TING Chiu & another [2003] 3 HKLRD 378 regarding the sentencing of unarmed robberies. Having considered all aspects of this case, I take the view that the appropriate starting point should be 4 years' imprisonment. A one-third discount is given for the guilty plea, reducing the sentence to 32 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. Hence, I sentence the defendant to 32 months' imprisonment.

15.   I order 1 month's imprisonment in TWCC 2841/2015 be activated and to run consecutively to the sentence in the present case.