|
DCCC435/2012
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 435 OF 2012
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Chan Wing-keung |
|
| ----------------------- |
| Before: |
Deputy District Judge E. Lin |
| Date: |
22 June 2012 at 3.03 pm |
| Present: |
Ms Catherine Ko, SPP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Mok Chiu-kuen Raymond, of C K Mok & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. In this case, the defendant faced one count of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210, Laws of Hong Kong.He is convicted upon his plea and admission of facts.
2. The facts revealed that in the morning on 14 October 2011, the defendant, wearing a mask, entered a convenience store in Sham Shui Po MTR station.He took out a fruit knife, pointing at the attendant there, demanding the same to take out all the $500 banknotes. Scared, the attendant did as told and gave a total of $2,750 to the defendant.
3. He then left the MTR station, dropping the surgical mask on his way.
4. The incident was captured by the security camera and, subsequently, the surgical mask and the fruit knife used by the defendant was located and seized in the vicinity.
5. The DNA of the saliva stain on the surgical mask confirmed that it belonged to the defendant.
6. On 29 March 2012, the defendant was arrested. Under caution, he admitted that he committed the robbery.
7. The offence of armed robbery had been considered by the High Court. There is a clear sentencing guideline in the form of the judgment of Mo Kwong Sang [1981] HKLR 610, where the then Chief Justice decreed that in an ordinary case of armed robbery where the accused was carrying a knife or other dangerous weapon which he displayed to the victim, the appropriate sentence should be 5 years.
8. In this case, I see no reason to justify my departure from the guideline.
9. I turn to consider the mitigating submissions.
10. As confirmed by the prosecution, the defendant is now aged 42, Form 1 education. According to the defence lawyer, he had working on a number of jobs. Since 1994, he started to live on public assistance.
11. He has a total of 13 previous convictions, 7 of which were related to dishonesty.
12. In view of his age and his previous record, he could not come forward and expect exceptional leniency from this court.
13. It is also noted that from his previous record, he had been involved in a number of drug-related offences. It would appear that his repeated commission of various crimes was related to his drug addiction.
14. Again, these are not matters which the court could consider mitigating factors. The only valid mitigating factor in this case is the fact that he pleaded guilty. In line with existing authorities, the court will give a one-third discount to the sentence.
15. Having considered the facts of the case and the guideline by the High Court, I will adopt 5 years as a starting point. It is reduced by one-third down to 3 years and 4 months to take into account of the guilty plea.
16. I have considered the whole of the defence submission and I found no other factor which could justify my exercise of further clemency.
17. I order, therefore, the defendant is to serve a term of imprisonment for 3 years and 4 months.
|
(E. Lin)
Deputy District Judge
|
|