HKSAR v. WONG TAT CHUEN

DCCC 1039/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1039 OF 2014

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  This is a case of bank robbery. Defendant pleaded guilty before me to two counts of attempted robbery. The robberies occurred in 10 days apart.

2.  In the first episode, the defendant went into the Chong Hing Bank in San Po Kong, handing over to a teller a note with the words in Chinese “Robbery Need Money For Surgery” written on it.  The teller told him she would report the matter to the police.  Having got back the note, the defendant fled.  The incident lasted about 16 seconds.

3.  The second episode occurred 10 days later. Again, the defendant went into another bank in San Po Kong, this time the defendant armed with a cutter.  He approached an old lady, 72 years of age, who was withdrawing money from a counter.  The defendant put his arm around her neck and placed the cutter against her neck, asking her to give him the money she was withdrawing.  The old woman tried to turn around.  Defendant then let go his grip and fled.  The incident lasted about 20 seconds.

4.  The defendant, aged 54, has an appalling criminal record.  He has amassed 40 convictions over the past 30 years.  Half of them are related to dishonesty.  One of them, in fact, is robbery.  In June 2007 he was sentenced to 3 years 4 months for the offence of robbery. 

5.  He is a drug addict.  The court was told that he has been abusing heroin since he was 18 or 19.  The defendant is married with no children.  The couple are living on CSSA, $5,300 a month.  The court was told that the defendant tried very hard to find jobs after release from prison.  He managed to find some jobs to support himself and the family and, of course, his addiction, but none of the jobs lasted very long.

6.  There are two reasons for his commission of the robberies:  one is to finance his drug habit; the other is to support the family.

7.  Defence counsel referred me to the case of Mo Kwong Sang and Ting Chiu.  Ting Chiu is a case for unarmed robbery.  In Ting Chiu, the court referred to Mo Kwong Sang.  In paragraph 10 of the judgment, it says this:

“‘By the word “armed” in this judgment, we are referring to knives and other dangerous weapons, but not to firearms for which severer sentences are normally imposed.

We suggest’”, “‘in future, the appropriate sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery, where the accused was carrying a knife or other dangerous weapon which he displayed to his victim, should normally be 5 years.

If such a robbery also involves an invasion of’” “‘premises (which includes domestic and business premises……………………………………….)’” “‘we suggest a sentence of 6 years would be appropriate.’”

8.  Defence counsel does not dispute that the bank comes within the definition of “business premises”.  It was put forward in mitigation that these were only half-hearted robberies.  As one can see from the time the defendant spent in trying to accomplish his objectives of obtaining money, they were all done in seconds and in the end he ran away without getting any money.

9.  I accept that these robberies were done very quickly.  It might be something to do with the fact that the defendant got scared and, as can be seen from the CCTVs which were played in court, the victims concerned did not seem to be very much frightened by the defendant’s acts.  But committing robbery in a bank is always a serious offence and, in my view, offenders should be deterred.

10.  Defendant said one of the reasons he committed the robberies was to finance his drug addiction.  Clearly, his problems lies with his drug habit.  If he did not face up to his drug problem and do something about it, he would likely be coming before the court again very soon and this time he might have the nerve to complete a robbery. 

11.  Looking at his record, clearly he is a repeat offender of this type of offence, but on this occasion I do not intend to increase the sentence because of this.

12.  Taking into account all the mitigations advanced, as for Charge 1, I take 4½ years as starting point; Charge 2, 6 years. 

13.  As far as mitigation is concerned, apart from his plea, I do not see any other mitigation of substance. 

14.  He is entitled to one-third discount for his pleas:  Charge 1 reduced to 3 years; Charge 2, 4 years.

15.  Taking into account the totality principle, I order that Charge 2 be run consecutively to 10 months of Charge 1.

16.  Total term is one of 4 years 10 months.