|
DCCC 232/2014
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 232 OF 2014
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
|
Drammeh Mamudou also known as
Mamudou Saiben |
|
| ---------------------- |
| Before: |
HH Judge Casewell |
| Date: |
13 June 2014 at 3.04 pm |
| Present: |
Mr John Hemmings, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR |
| |
Mr Wong Shiu-sang, of SSW & Associates, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the defendant |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. The defendant has been convicted after trial of one offence of robbery. Now, the evidence coming from the CCTV recording of the event shows it to be an unarmed robbery of a mobile phone valued between five and six thousand dollars. The victim afterwards did not go to hospital, so there is no medical report on his injuries. Suffice it to say force was used at the time of the taking of the item, but I say no weapon was used and no lasting injury caused. So it is to be treated as an unarmed robbery.
2. The defendant is a 37-year-old male, and I have his antecedents. It shows that he comes from Gambia and is an asylum seeker in Hong Kong. I was told by him that he was a resident in Chungking Mansions prior to this incident. He is described as not suffering from any serious illness but he is a drug addict who has an addiction or a consumption of “Ice”, and he was discharged from Tai Lam Correctional Institute on 5 October 2013.
3. I have the defendant’s previous criminal record dating back to 2008 showing a total of nine previous appearances in court involving what could be called as petty crime: 2010, offence of wounding, received 3 months’ imprisonment; theft in 2011, 3 weeks’ imprisonment; again in 2012, theft, 4 months’ imprisonment; later on in the year, theft, shoplifting, 2 months’ imprisonment. So offences of violence and dishonesty, and also possession of drugs in 2013, receiving a 4 months’ sentence of imprisonment.
4. The criminal record itself, given the defendant’s length of time here, is poor but I do not believe it to be an aggravating factor in sentencing for this matter. As far as the starting point for sentence is concerned, as I said, this is an unarmed robbery. The high point, as it were, the courts have said the high-point guideline sentence for an unarmed robbery is 4 years’ imprisonment.
5. The offence in this case is obviously not the most serious form of unarmed robbery. I will take a starting point for sentence, which of course will be the finishing point for sentence as well, of 39 months’ imprisonment. That will be the sentence of the court: 39 months’ imprisonment.
|
(T Casewell)
District Judge
|
|