|
HCCC139/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 139 OF 2009
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
LIU YIFANG |
|
| |
ZHOU GUODONG |
|
| |
LIU SHIKEN |
|
| |
LUO JIANQIANG |
|
----------------------
| Date: |
12 June 2009 at 10.38 am |
| Present: |
Ms Anna Lai, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Jacky Jim Chun-kit, instructed by K F Chan & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st to 4th Accused |
---------------------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------------------
COURT: The four defendants pleaded guilty at Eastern Magistracy to a joint offence of robbery, and were committed to this court for sentence pursuant to section 81B of the Magistrates Ordinance.
The facts of the offence were straightforward. The four victims of the offence were playing mahjong in a store in On Hing Street, Yuen Long, a little after midnight in September of last year.
The four defendants rushed in to the premises and declared robbery. Two of them produced imitation pistols. The roller shutter of the shop was pulled down, and the four victims’ hands were tied with plastic tape.
Items of personal property were taken from the victims, comprising watches, mobile phones, a pendant, a ring, a necklace and cash totalling $10,700.
The defendants then fled. The four victims were able to chase after the defendants and alerted passers-by, including an off-duty police constable, who were able to intercept and apprehend D1 and D2.
The latter subsequently admitted his role in the offence, and, on the basis of his admissions, police went to premises in Yuen Long for a home search the next day.
At those premises were found D3 and D4, still in possession of some of the stolen property. They were arrested.
Subsequently, each defendant admitted having come into Hong Kong from the mainland and committing the robbery with the others.
I take into account this was a robbery in company involving the production of imitation firearms, and the robbery involved the invasion of premises and the tying up of the victims.
In my view, there is little to separate the role of each defendant. They robbed as a group, and each had their own role to play. Each of them was no doubt aware imitation firearms would be produced, and I do not distinguish amongst them on the basis of which of them actually held the imitation weapons.
The robbery was not conducted with the ferocity sometimes seen when a gang invades private or commercial premises. In this case, none of the victims were injured. They were lightly bound, and hence their ability to give chase to the robbers, and the mobile phone of one was returned when she said she needed to have access to telephone numbers recorded in it.
For those reasons, I take a slightly lower starting point of sentence than I otherwise would have done, and I take, in respect of each defendant, a starting point of 10 years’ imprisonment.
Their family and economic circumstances, as outlined to me, are not unusual; nor is the 2nd defendant’s co-operation with the police a cause for a further reduction in sentence. The discount he receives for his plea, in my view, in the circumstances of this case, encapsulates that.
Accordingly, the only mitigation available for each defendant is his plea of guilty, and full credit is given for that.
Each defendant is sentenced to 6 years 8 months’ imprisonment.
|