COURT: You two defendants have been convicted by the jury of an offence of robbery, contrary to section 10(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, Laws of Hong Kong.
You entered into a joint enterprise with each other to rob the victim of his briefcase.
Although the evidence suggests that this may have been an opportunistic crime rather than anything pre-planned, the victim was subjected to a cowardly and vicious assault by you, D2, who used Exhibit P3, which is a wooden board, and beat the victim about his head with this, causing injuries to both eyelids, gushing blood and rendering the unfortunate victim virtually unconscious; whilst you, D1, snatched at his briefcase.
The victim resisted your attempts at snatching the briefcase as it contained diamonds, but was unsuccessful, as you, D1, managed to wrestle it from his grasp. Fortunately, the police arrived almost instantaneously and prevented the two of you from getting away with this.
As a result, the victim lost nothing, and it is no thanks to either of you that the victim was not more seriously injured.
As this was a joint enterprise, I see no reason to differentiate between the two of you so far as sentence is concerned.
This is a classic case of head bashing in order to facilitate the snatching, and the case of Secretary for Justice v Ma Ping Wah suggests that as such, a minimum sentence of not less than 8 years’ imprisonment should be imposed.
In sentencing you both I take all that has been said on your behalves by your respective counsel.
Each of you will go to prison for 8 years.