HKSAR v. LAU SIU MAU

DCCC354/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 354 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charge

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of assault with intent to rob. Such offence is contrary to section 10(2) of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

The Facts

2.  The facts of the case can be summarised as follows.  At about 6.35 am on 18 March 2012, PW1, a girl aged 16 was walking home.  When she passed by the rear lane of No. 562 Nathan Road, Yau Ma Tei, Kowloon, Hong Kong, the defendant suddenly appeared from behind.  He grabbed PW1’s neck and covered her mouth.  After PW1 was taken to a nearby staircase, the defendant attempted to snatch her handbag which contained a wallet, a mobile phone valued at about HK$4,500 and some cash.

3.  PW1 struggled vigorously and shouted for help. As a result, she suffered abrasion on her left hand.  Two passers-by intercepted the defendant and reported the matter to the police.  The police soon arrived and the defendant was arrested.  Under caution, the defendant admitted that he intended to rob PW1 of her handbag and valuables.

The Defendant’s Background and Mitigation

4.  The defendant, aged 32 is the eldest amongst three children of a working-class family.  All along, he received adequate adult supervision.  His childhood was described as uneventful.  The family relationship was harmonious.  After joining the workforce as a decoration worker, the defendant was able to maintain a stable working pattern.  He earned $500 per day.  

5.  The defendant married in year 2000 and has two children aged 10 and 11 respectively.  However, the mother of the two children had deserted the family 10 years ago.  Two years later, the defendant and his wife divorced.  The custody of the children was granted to the defendant.  As a single parent, the defendant bears the responsibility of nurturing and bringing up the children and at the same time to earn a living as a decoration worker. He was living with his mother and the two young children.  The defendant remarried in year 2010.  To maintain harmonous relationship with the defendant’s mother and children and also due to space constraint at home, the defendant’s wife decided to live separately.  The defendant claimed that he has no unwholesome habit.  During his free time, he enjoyed watching TV, playing robot models and basketball and swimming with his children. 

6.  The defendant revealed that he received insufficient job order in March this year.  Due to financial pressure and emotional distress, he consumed large quantity of beer the night before the offence.  Under the influence of alcohol, his will was weakened.  Consequently, he committed the present offence.  The defendant felt remorseful and expressed regret for his law violation.  He claimed that the case was an isolated incident and he misbehaved quite out of character.  Nevertheless he was prepared to accept the consequences of his misdeed.  He promised to start anew and would seek a steady job upon his discharge.  Having learnt a serious lesson from the present detention, the defendant pleaded for a lenient sentence so that he could resume his parental role to take care of his children and be with the family.

7.  According to the defendant’s mother, the defendant was all along a diligent, good-natured and law-abiding person.  He has no drinking habit.  With gainful employment, he would provide regular monthly contribution to his family.  Both the mother and his younger sister are willing to shoulder the child-caring role in the absence of the defendant.  They besought leniency from the court.

8.  The defendant’s employers were astonished by the news of the present case.  They spoke good of the defendant and promised to continue offering him jobs upon his release.

Sentencing Consideration

9.  In this case, the defendant faced a single offence of assault with intent to rob a girl aged 16.  The offence took place at 6.35 in the morning.  The defendant acted alone.  Although no financial loss was suffered by the victim, nevertheless, the facts revealed that it was effectively a robbery case with actual violence on a young victim.[1]

10.  The defendant grabbed the defendant’s neck from behind and covered her mouth.  He pulled her to a staircase before snatching her handbag.  By so doing the defendant had put the victim in a devastating fear of her own safety and her life being at stake.  The usual tariff in sentence for an unarmed robbery would then be suitable and applicable to this case.

Sentencing Guidelines for Unarmed Robbery

11.  In R v Yau Kwok Tung [1987] HKLR 782 where a couple was robbed by two culprits in the early hours of the morning, cash was taken and a necklace was snatched as a result, Robert CJ said:

“A sentence of 4 years, in the circumstances of this case, is at the top end of the tariff for robberies where weapons are not displayed. Nevertheless, the offence took place at night, the victims were frightened and we do not regard it as so manifestly excessive that it would be proper for us to interfere with it.”

12.  In HKSAR v Ting Chiu and Lau Cheung Ling CACC174/2003, an unarmed robbery was committed on two victims by four culprits during midday.  Little physical violence was applied and the value of the property robbed was relatively minor.  The Court of Appeal held that the starting point should be 4 years. 

13.  However, each case depends upon its circumstances.  In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that the crime was premeditated and planned.  No property was actually stolen from the victim.  The defendant has a clear record.  He claimed that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offence.  Based on the information of the background report, this court accepts that it was an isolated incident and was quite out of character for the defendant to be involved in the said criminal activity.

Sentence

14.  Having fully considered all the circumstances, including the background of the case, and that of the defendant, the mitigation advanced and the guilty plea, this court considers the proper starting point for the present offence to be 39 months’ imprisonment.  A usual one-third discount would be given for his guilty plea so as to reduce the sentence to 26 months’ imprisonment. 

15.  There were no other factors in this case which would justify a further reduction in sentence.  This court now imposes a 26 months’ imprisonment on the defendant.

[1] See (HKSAR v Chow Kin Chung CACC8/2007)