CRIMINAL CASE NO. 347 OF 2010
COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty before Mr Mierczak at Eastern Magistracy to an offence of robbery (Charge 1) and to two offences of attempted robbery (Charges 2 and 3) and has been committed to this court for sentence. On the occasion of each offence, the defendant robbed or attempted to rob females operating one-woman brothels.
On 31 March 2010, the defendant went to a one-woman brothel in Tsuen Wan. After consensual sexual intercourse, the defendant took out a paper-cutter from a rucksack he had with him and declared robbery. The victim gave him $400 and the defendant then fled. They were the facts according to the first-charged offence.
On 17 April, the defendant went to a one-woman brothel in Kwai Chung. After sexual services had been provided to him, he again took out a paper-cutter and declared robbery. The victim kicked the defendant and he then left. They are the facts supporting Charge 2.
On 8 May, the defendant went to a one-woman brothel in Tsuen Wan. After intercourse, the defendant took out a paper-cutter from his rucksack and said, “Robbery. Hand over all your money. The person who always robs others is me.” The victim replied in a loud voice that she would give him the money and asked him not to hurt her. Two women in other nearby brothels heard this and rushed into the victim’s room to confront the defendant, who then fled. They were the facts supporting Charge 3.
Subsequently, some two weeks later, patrolling police officers who had the defendant’s description which had been provided by the victims of Charges 1-3, saw the defendant and intercepted him. Under caution, he subsequently admitted the offences.
I bear in mind the principles expressed in Mo Kwong Sang [1981] HKLR 610. In each of the present offences a weapon in the form of a paper-cutter was displayed, though there was no actual physical violence or other aggravating factor present. I note that the defendant had consensual sex with each of his victims and that he had been allowed into their premises.
Accordingly, in respect of the first-charged offence of robbery, I take a starting point of sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment. That is reduced to 3 years 4 months’ imprisonment to reflect the guilty plea of the defendant. There is no other mitigation.
So far as Charges 2 and 3 are concerned, the offences the subject of those charges were incomplete. In my view, the starting point of sentence for a robbery offence attempted but not completed should generally be lower than for a completed offence. That is to reflect, as occurred in this case, the lesser culpability of an offender not pressing home the robbery, perhaps to the physical prejudice of the victim or others.
In respect of each of the offences of attempted robbery in Charges 2 and 3, I therefore take a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment. That reduces to 2 years 8 months to reflect the defendant’s plea.
In my view, an appropriate totality of sentence is 5 years 4 months’ imprisonment. That reflects a notional starting point of 8 years’ imprisonment. To achieve that, I order that the sentences imposed in respect of Charges 2 and 3 be served concurrently but that two years of the sentences be served consecutively to the sentence imposed in respect of the first-charged offence.
As I say, that results in a totality of 5 years 4 months’ imprisonment.