HKSAR v. NGUYEN TSZ BO, TRAVIS AND ANOTHER

HCCC 294/2025

[2026] HKCFI 189

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 294 OF 2025

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The 1st defendant faced a total of three charges, that is two counts of robbery (Charge 1 and Charge 3) and one count of assaulting a police officer in the due execution of his duty (Charge 2). The 2nd defendant faced a total of two charges, that is two counts of robbery in Charges 1 and 3. Both of them pleaded guilty before a magistrate on 1 September this year and were committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence.

According to the Summary of Facts which they agreed at the time of their guilty plea, in respect of Charge 1, it occurred at a company called the La Vigie (HK) Limited which was a company opened by a Mr Wong specialising in the sale of Rolex and other luxury watches. It situated in the President Commercial Building in Mongkok.

At about 3.10 pm on 12 January 2023, the 1st defendant went into the shop and told Mr Wong that he would like to look at three specific watches. Mr Wong asked him to return to the shop later because one of the watches that he requested would arrive at the shop soon, and both of them exchanged telephone numbers. At that time, the 1st defendant told Mr Wong that he was called Mr Yuen, and said that he would return to the shop later.

Around two hours later, at 5.06 pm on the same day, both defendants pretended to be customers and they entered the shop together. They asked Mr Wong to show them two Rolex watches placed inside the glass display cabinet. When Mr Wong was doing so, suddenly the 2nd defendant wielded in his right hand a beef knife of about 20 to 30 centimetres long. He pointed the knife at Mr Wong and declared robbery. The 1st defendant also robbed different items from the shop and put them into his backpack. Those stolen items included a total of nine Rolex watches amounting to HK$1,419,000 and cash in the sum of HK$409,000 that was placed on top of a photocopier.

When the 1st defendant was looting the shop, suddenly the 2nd defendant used his right fist to punch Mr Wong’s left forehead. The 1st defendant also took away the iPhone of Mr Wong, an iPhone 14 that was placed on the counter.

The 1st defendant then asked Mr Wong to produce his other mobile phones and if Mr Wong would not comply he would stab Mr Wong. Mr Wong was frightened and anxiously searched for his other iPhone SE as he had forgotten where he had put the phone. When he was searching for the second iPhone, the 2nd defendant held his beef knife closer and closer to Mr Wong. Eventually the 2nd defendant used the beef knife to slash Mr Wong’s right ring finger, causing it to bleed.

The 1st defendant asked Mr Wong to use his first iPhone to call the second iPhone. And then the second iPhone rang, therefore Mr Wong was able to locate it and gave it to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant also forced Mr Wong to tell them the passcodes of both iPhones before the two of them fled the premises.

At the time when they were leaving the premises, the 1st defendant also took away a black backpack of Mr Wong which valued HK$1,000 containing a Louis Vuitton wallet, cash $8,000 and five credit cards of different banks in Hong Kong. After the robbery Mr Wong reported the matter to the police.

The total amount of all the stolen properties including the nine Rolex watches, all the cash and the value of the other stolen properties was over HK$1,848,500.

According to the result of police investigation and the images captured by the CCTV, the whole course of the robbery and also the escape route of the two defendants were being revealed. It was discovered that after this robbery the two defendants boarded a taxi at Portland Street in Mongkok from where they went to Mei Foo Sun Chuen, changed to another taxi to go to Cheung On Estate in Tsing Yi. There they entered the lift of Kam Fai Garden in Tuen Mun.

At about 4.39 pm on 14 January 2023, a detective police constable DPC14008 intercepted the 1st defendant outside a Vietnamese restaurant called Pho Kieu Restaurant situated at No. 4 of Cedar Street in Mongkok. The DPC seized the mobile phone of the 1st defendant. At that time, the 1st defendant tried to resist by pushing the DPC away. The DPC led the 1st defendant to a back alley for investigation and then arrested him for robbery. However, the 1st defendant behaved emotionally and he kept trying to push the DPC away. The DPC warned the defendant repeatedly, but the 1st defendant still attempted to escape. During the struggle, he used his left fist to punch the DPC’s right eye, causing the latter to feel very painful. The DPC arrested the 1st defendant for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. Eventually, the 1st defendant was subdued.

Upon his arrest, a search was conducted on the 1st defendant. It was found that he was wearing one of the Rolex watches that was stolen in the earlier robbery, that is the robbery in respect of the 1st charge. He also had cash amounting to $110,914 on him.

He was cautioned for the robbery (the 1st charge). Under caution he admitted that the money and the watch on him were robbed from the watch shop.

He was cautioned for assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer. The 1st defendant stated that he did not assault the DPC intentionally, that he only wanted to get back his mobile phone and therefore accidentally hit the police officer during the struggle.

DPC14008 was sent to Kwong Wah Hospital for medical treatment. Medical examination revealed that he was suffering from subjective double vision on left lateral gaze. His face did not have any fracture.

Those were the facts in respect of the 1st and the 2nd charges.

On 18 January 2023, the 2nd defendant surrendered himself to the police, and at the time he was accompanied by his legal representative. Upon being arrested, he stated under caution that he would plead guilty and surrender himself to the police, and also he would bring back $100,000 which was the stolen property.

Eventually, on his person the police seized cash of $100,000 claimed to be the money stolen from the shop of Mr Wong, cash of $699, a letter of admission of guilt written by the 2nd defendant and also a mobile telephone.

In the video-recorded interview conducted by the police with the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant stated under caution that:

- He had robbed the shop of Mr Wong of watches, cash and two mobile phones. He saw the shop on the Internet and considered that it was an easy target. He did recce at the shop at about 1 to 2 pm on the date of offence. Then he went to meet up his friend Golden Hair Boy (金毛仔) whom he also addressed as “Mojai”.

- Before committing the robbery, he went to the shop itself, pretending to be a customer and asked Mr Wong for specific models of Rolex watches. He also gave the mobile number of Golden Hair Boy as his own telephone number to Mr Wong.

- Later, together with Golden Hair Boy, the two of them attended the shop, pretended to be customers. His original plan was to threaten Mr Wong verbally and then commit the robbery and rob the watches. However, Golden Hair Boy suddenly took out a knife, and eventually, the two of them robbed a total of seven watches from the shop. He put all the stolen property into his own backpack.

- At that time when he committed the robbery, he was wearing gloves because he did not want to leave any fingerprint.

- Afterwards, the two of them took a taxi to Mei Foo Sun Chuen and then to Tsing Yi to dispose of the clothes that they were wearing and the equipment they used when they committed the robbery. Most of those items were dumped into a rubbish bin at Cheung Fat Estate.

- In respect of the cash, they shared equally between themselves, each taking about HK$110,000 or HK$120,000.

- He himself kept all the watches, all seven of them. One of them was the watch that he was wearing at the time of his arrest. He gave the remaining six stolen watches to an unknown person and sold them at HK$300,000 on 13 January. He gave half of the proceeds to Golden Hair Boy, that is, HK$150,000 was given to Golden Hair Boy.

- He committed the robbery because he owed a debt of about $150,000 to a finance company due to gambling. He identified himself from the CCTV footages capturing the robbery at the watch shop.

In respect of the 2nd defendant, a video-recorded interview was also conducted by the police. He admitted under caution in that interview that he robbed the shop together with the 1st defendant on 12 January 2023:

- He was a transportation worker earning about $15,000 per month. He met up with the 1st defendant in Mongkok. The 1st defendant suggested to rob a watch shop together. The 1st defendant claimed he was well equipped and he would instruct the 2nd defendant to take out the knife to keep the situation under control.

- The 2nd defendant claimed that he did not want to do the job but because the 1st defendant was in debt, he agreed to help the 1st defendant out of greed.

- Then the 1st defendant took him to the watch shop on the 2nd floor of a shopping plaza. They entered the shop, pretending to be customers, and requested to look at watches. When they were checking out the watches, the 1st defendant instructed him to take out the knife. So the 2nd defendant pointed the knife at Mr Wong, that is, the victim of the 1st charge, and the knife accidentally slashed Mr Wong.

- The 1st defendant robbed the shop and took away the watches while he was guarding Mr Wong. During the robbery, he himself was wearing a pair of gloves.

- When they were about to leave the premises, he also punched the forehead of Mr Wong with his left hand to stop Mr Wong from standing up.

- Afterwards the two of them went to Tung Chung and changed their clothes in a shopping mall. All the clothes removed were given to the 1st defendant for disposal.

- He received HK$100,000 from the 1st defendant, and all the remaining stolen properties were being kept by the 1st defendant who told him that he would deal with the watches and share the proceeds with him later.

- The 1st defendant was the mastermind of the robbery, and his own role was to point the knife at Mr Wong to threaten Mr Wong so that he would not move.

- In respect of the CCTV footages, he admitted that the person holding the knife in the CCTV footages was himself, and the other person was the 1st defendant.

In a later identification parade held by the police, Mr Wong positively identified both defendants as the robbers who robbed his shop on 12 January 2023. Also the police recovered a grey hoodie and a black sling bag which was being used by the 2nd defendant at the time of the robbery.

Coming to the facts of Charge 3, the second robbery against the two defendants. The second robbery occurred at the Canny Industrial Building in San Po Kong. According to the CCTV images, on the 12th day of December 2022, a Mr Ching was robbed by two males with knives on the 10th floor of the building, and both robbers ran away afterwards. One of the robbers fled towards the direction of Diamond Hill while the other robber boarded a taxi. Police enquiries revealed that the two robbers were the 2nd and the 1st defendant in this case.

Upon his arrest, in a video-recorded interview, the 2nd defendant admitted robbing a male in the building and described in detail as to how he committed the robbery with the 1st defendant:

- On the evening of 11 December 2022, the 1st defendant picked him up in Sheung Shui. The 1st defendant came in a silver Mercedes Benz of registration number WE 6087. The two of them went to San Po Kong. Then the 1st defendant asked him to assist in grabbing a person. The 1st defendant said he would prepare two knives which were already placed in the boot of his car. He asked the 2nd defendant to grab and rob that person together. The 2nd defendant agreed.

- Afterwards the 1st defendant fetched a black shopping bag from the boot of his car, and the bag contained two knives. He brought the 2nd defendant to the building in San Po Kong. Then they took the lift to the 10th floor. They waited at the rear staircase and left a knife there.

- The 1st defendant told the 2nd defendant that when he saw someone coming out, the 2nd defendant should hijack the person with the knife and take that person to the rear staircase. Meanwhile, the 1st defendant himself took the other knife and went to the other exit of the back staircase.

- After a while, the victim (Mr Ching) walked out from a flat to the lift lobby. When he was waiting for the lift, the 1st defendant rushed towards him and threatened him with a knife. The 2nd defendant also dashed towards him and pointed another knife at him.

- The 2nd defendant took him to the rear staircase. At that time Mr Ching was frightened. The 2nd defendant grabbed him and asked him not to move. The 1st defendant pointed the knife at Mr Ching and asked Mr Ching to take out all his valuable property. Mr Ching asked them not to hurt him and took out a stack of cash. The 1st defendant also asked Mr Ching to remove his golden watch and take out his mobile phone.

- Eventually the cash of Mr Ching, a Rolex watch and his mobile phone were taken away. The 1st defendant kept the mobile phones and the knives when they left the scene of robbery.

- They arranged to meet up at the McDonald’s restaurant at Amoy Plaza later. The 2nd defendant got on a taxi to go to Amoy Plaza. Later the two of them met together and that the 2nd defendant gave all the stolen properties to the 1st defendant. Then they got onto the Mercedes Benz of the 1st defendant and returned to the Vietnamese restaurant, Pho Kieu Restaurant, where the 1st defendant entered the restaurant to put down the knives and then drove the car to Tuen Mun.

- The 1st defendant gave HK$30,000 cash from the stolen property to the 2nd defendant and told the 2nd defendant that after he had sold the watch and the mobile phone, he would share the proceeds with him. In respect of the HK$30,000 that he received from the 1st defendant for this robbery, he had spent the entire amount.

The pair of sports shoes which were worn by the 2nd defendant at the time of the robbery were also seized by the police. These were the facts of the second robbery that occurred in December 2022

The 1st defendant is a Vietnamese male who is now 29 years of age. He was 26 years old when he committed the offences. He worked as a waiter in a Vietnamese restaurant. He had completed university education in Hong Kong and in Australia. He is single and resides together with his family members at Yau Oi Estate in Tuen Mun.

In respect of the 2nd defendant, he is now 27 years of age and he was 24 years old at the time of the offences. Like the 1st defendant, he is also a man of no previous criminal conviction. He was a transportation worker before his arrest, and he had received up to Secondary Form 6 education in Hong Kong. He is single and resides with his family in Sau Mau Ping South Estate in Sau Mau Ping.

In mitigation on behalf of the 1st defendant, counsel Mr Lawrence Hui informed me that the 1st defendant used to work at his parents’ family-run Vietnamese restaurant as a waiter. He lives with his parents and younger sister, and he is a person of clear record.

Counsel rightly identified the aggravating features in the two charges of robbery but he pointed out that those two robberies did not involve severe violence or any other appalling features. The injury sustained by Mr Wong in the 1st charge of robbery was relatively minor. Counsel asked this court to bear in mind the fact that in respect of Charge 1 the 1st defendant himself did not use any violence. It was the 2nd defendant only who punched Mr Wong, wielded the knife at him and inflicted the injuries on him.

In respect of the Charge 3 robbery, counsel submitted that no actual violence was involved. I think by that he meant no actual injury was inflicted because, after all, the victim was being threatened by the use of the knife.

In respect of both charges, counsel rightly identified the following aggravating features: knives and violence were involved; the two defendants were acting in concert; the 1st defendant threatened to injure the victims in the robberies; both robberies involved to an extent certain planning; non-insignificant amount of money and valuable properties were being robbed; not all of the robbed items were recovered; and in the 1st charge clothing was changed and disposed during the escape.

In respect of the two robbery charges, counsel submitted that the starting point for each of them should probably be not more than 9 years of imprisonment.

As for the 2nd charge of assaulting a police officer, counsel submitted that fortunately the assault itself did not prolong or escalate, and the officer did not sustain very serious injury. Counsel urged this court to consider passing a concurrent or largely concurrent sentence with the other charges, pointing out that the usual period of imprisonment would range from several weeks to months.

In mitigation, counsel also invited this court to take into account the fact that the 1st defendant has a clear record, he admitted his guilt under caution and he had been co‑operating with the police. He is now remorseful and regretful, and entered the pleas of guilty at an early opportunity. Counsel urged this court to impose concurrent or largely concurrent sentences, taking into account the principle of totality.

On behalf of the 1st defendant, counsel had also submitted total 23 items of different documents including seven mitigation letters and some other documents including, say, birth certificate, school or diploma certificates, business registration of the Vietnamese restaurant run by his family, certificate of graduation, etc. The mitigation letters were prepared by the defendant himself, his parents, his younger sisters and the pastors or other religious persons who came to know him after he was remanded in custody, testifying to his good behaviour while he was being remanded.

In respect of the letters from the defendant himself and his own family, they all pleaded for leniency on behalf of the 1st defendant. In his own letter the 1st defendant also apologised to the victims of the two robberies. He apologised to the society and his family, and said that he is deeply remorseful for what had occurred.

Amongst the documents that had been submitted, there was one certificate prepared by the executive secretary of the Agency for Volunteer Service. It was a document dated December 2024, saying that this defendant had participated in some greeting card distribution programme as voluntary service back in 2023. No detail was known in respect of this matter.

In mitigation on behalf of the 2nd defendant, counsel Mr Hugo Chan informed this court that the 2nd defendant was only 24 years old when he committed the offences. He committed the offences out of stupidity and immaturity because he believed in the 1st defendant, that he had wanted to help the 1st defendant who was in debt, and he himself was also greedy about a way to earn quick and easy money. Counsel submitted that the 2nd defendant guaranteed that he would never re-offend again. The 2nd defendant is single and he is the only child of the family. Before his arrest, he worked as a transportation worker earning around HK$15,000 a month.

Counsel had also submitted a number of mitigation letters on his behalf including letters prepared by the defendant himself, his parents and his employer to show that he used to be a hardworking person, that he was a kind, nice and filial person well-liked and respected by people around him, and that he frankly admitted his wrongdoings and had shown remorse. In his own mitigation letter, the 2nd defendant also said that he committed the offence out of stupidity and he would never re-offend again. Counsel also apologised to the victims on behalf of the 2nd defendant in the open court.

Counsel pointed out that the 2nd defendant voluntarily surrendered himself to the police on 18 January 2023, in the company of his legal representative. He voluntarily returned the whole of the $100,000, being the reward he received for the Charge 1 robbery, and carried with him a letter of admission of guilt detailing his own involvement in the robberies. Upon his arrest, he fully co-operated with the authorities and gave details of the offences under caution. He also pleaded guilty to the offences at an early stage, so he would be entitled to the full one-third discount.

In respect of his personal life, counsel said the 2nd defendant was a man of positive good character because before committing the offences he was a regular volunteer at the Hong Kong Caring Power Limited. He had performed some voluntary services for that particular organisation for around three years, visiting the elderly homes and also some poor families. The chairman of the Hong Kong Caring Power Limited also submitted a mitigation letter on behalf of the 2nd defendant. There was another certificate prepared by the Helping Hand, saying that the 2nd defendant had served as a volunteer for that organisation. That was a document dated 18 May 2022, saying that the 2nd defendant had provided contributions and support to the elders of their organisation.

In respect of the offences themselves, counsel rightly identified the aggravating features: two robberies were being committed by the two defendants acting in concert; there was an invasion of business premises; there were some sort of planning in both robberies. Counsel admitted that knives were being used to threaten or harm the victims in the robberies, but fortunately the injury sustained by the victim in the first robbery was relatively minor. Counsel also identified as a feature that a significant amount of items were being stolen in the robberies.

According to counsel’s submission, the 2nd defendant committed both robberies under the instruction of the 1st defendant who was indeed the mastermind: it was the 1st defendant who planned and arranged both robberies, and asked the 2nd defendant to go along to assist; it was the 1st defendant who prepared all the equipment including the knives, the weapons used in the robbery; it was the 1st defendant who had previously conducted a recce on the shop and went to the shop earlier to request the victim Mr Wong to prepare the watches.

Counsel also submitted that all the stolen watches were being kept by the 1st defendant who only gave HK$100,000 cash to the 2nd defendant as reward. However, as the Summary of Facts revealed, after the Rolex watches were sold the 1st defendant said he shared the proceeds of the sale equally together with the 2nd defendant.

In respect of the 1st charge, counsel agreed that the 2nd defendant had punched the forehead of Mr Wong once and also accidentally slashed the knife over the finger of Mr Wong. However it was fortunate that Mr Wong only suffered minor injuries. So the case was not the worst or the most serious of its kind. Counsel urged this court to adopt a starting point of not more than 9 years’ imprisonment for the 1st charge.

Likewise, in respect of the 3rd charge (the second robbery) counsel agreed that case was aggravated by the fact that the two defendants were acting in concert; there were some sort of planning; knives were used to threaten the victim; and valuable properties were being stolen. The 2nd defendant frankly admitted that he pointed a beef knife at the victim, but counsel submitted that he was acting under the instruction of the 1st defendant who was the mastermind who planned and arranged both robberies. Counsel urged this court to adopt a starting point of not more than 8½ years of imprisonment in Charge 3.

All in all, counsel urged this court to take into account the totality principle so that he can reunite with his family soon. Also this court should consider a partly consecutive and concurrent sentence because the two robberies took place within one month’s time.

In sentencing the two defendants, I have taken into account the authorities referred to by the prosecution in the sentencing bundle and also the authorities cited by counsel in their written submissions. The guidelines for armed robbery other than the use of firearms has been well established by the Court of Appeal in the case of Mo Kwong Sang v R [1981] HKLR 610.

I shall come to the sentence for the 1st charge of robbery first. According to the facts of this case this robbery was an aggravated one, and that may affect the starting point. The aggravating features include:

- It occurred at a watch shop which was a business premises selling luxury goods and vulnerable in a way that it was open to the public for business.

- A significant amount of stolen properties were involved. The total amount of the stolen properties was over HK$1.8 million, and only a small amount of the stolen properties were recovered.

- It was a premeditated robbery.

- The two defendants were acting in concert.

- A beef knife of about 20 to 30 centimetres long was used in the course of the robbery to threaten the victim Mr Wong. Indeed actual violence was inflicted on Mr Wong.

In the course of this robbery, the 1st defendant had threatened Mr Wong by saying that if he did not take out his mobile phones, he would be stabbed with the knife. The 2nd defendant was the one who pointed the beef knife at Mr Wong. He also punched Mr Wong’s forehead suddenly out of the blue when there was no reason or no need for him to do so. When Mr Wong was searching for the mobile phone under the instruction of the 1st defendant, he held the knife closer and closer to Mr Wong and eventually used the knife to slash the right ring finger of Mr Wong, causing him to bleed.

So, taking into account all those aggravating features and the fact that this was the second robbery committed by the two of them in a series - the first robbery, subject of Charge 3, occurred on 12 December 2022, and one month later, on 12 January 2023 the two of them committed the second robbery together - so this was the second robbery committed by the two of them in a series of robberies.

In respect of the 1st defendant, his role and culpability was also aggravated by the fact that he appeared to be the mastermind and organiser of the first robbery. He was the one who provided the knife for use in the robbery, he was the one who gave instruction, he was the one who had conducted recce of the premises beforehand after reading about this watch company on the Internet, and he was the one who visited the shop earlier that afternoon to ask Mr Wong to prepare some Rolex watches for him to watch later.

In respect of the 2nd defendant, his role and culpability was aggravated by the fact that in addition to using the knife to threaten the victim, he actually used the knife to inflict injury onto Mr Wong by slashing his right ring finger, and he had also used violence by punching the forehead of Mr Wong once. I do bear in mind that in mitigation counsel submitted that the slashing of the knife was accidental as he was tense.

In respect of the mitigating feature of the 1st charge, of course both defendants pleaded guilty at an early stage and both of them are entitled to the full one-third discount in respect of this charge. On the other hand, I bear in mind that both defendants are persons of clear record and also they are young men in their 20s, but they are not persons of extreme youth and their age would not count as any meaningful mitigating feature.

I also take into account that of all the stolen properties, one watch and some cash were recovered. The total amount recovered, including the amount being surrendered by the 2nd defendant, was HK$210,914 which was less than 15 per cent of the stolen items. That means more than 85 per cent of the stolen items were not yet recovered.

And Mr Wong, the victim, was injured but fortunately, as submitted by counsel, his injury was not severe in nature.

In respect of the 1st defendant, I bear in mind the fact that the injury of Mr Wong was not sustained by him. However, the 1st defendant was the one who brought along the knife and he was the one who equipped the knife for the use of D2. It also appeared that he was the one who planned this robbery because in his own cautioned interview he admitted doing the recce and visiting the shop earlier. Even though he was not the one who actually injured Mr Wong, but the use of the knife to injure the victim or the people of the shop must be anticipated by him, the use of the knife in case when it was necessary.

In respect of the 2nd defendant, I bear in mind and accept that he was not the mastermind of this matter and that the knife was not originated from him. He was given the knife to use in the robbery by the 1st defendant. In particular, I bear in mind the fact that he voluntarily surrendered to the police himself on 18 January when the police had no idea yet at that time about his involvement in the robbery. At the time when he surrendered himself to the police, he also brought along a letter detailing his admission of the offences, and also he voluntarily returned the stolen property of HK$100,000 in this case.

On the other hand, in respect of his role and culpability, he was the person who actually used the knife and the person who actually inflicted the violence on Mr Wong by slashing his finger and also punching his forehead.

So, bearing in mind all the above matters and taking into account the facts of this case, the guideline cases and the authorities referred to by both the prosecution and the defence, the role and culpability of the two defendants played, in respect of the 1st charge I would adopt a starting point of 8 years for the 1st defendant. In respect of the 2nd defendant I would adopt a starting point of 7 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

In respect of the 1st defendant, he pleaded guilty to the offence at an early stage and he is entitled to the full one-third discount. There being no other meaningful mitigating feature in respect of 1st charge, after the one‑third discount he is sentenced to 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. That is the 1st defendant.

In respect of the 2nd defendant, having taken into account all the matters raised in mitigation including his plea of guilty and he has voluntarily surrendered to the police, his role and culpability in this case and the information laid before me by counsel, I will give him an overall discount of 45 per cent. So, adopting a 45 per cent to the starting point of 7 years and 9 months, the sentence to be imposed on the 2nd defendant is 4 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

So the 1st defendant for the 1st charge: 5 years 4 months; 2nd defendant for the 1st charge: 4 years 3 months.

I shall now come to the sentencing of the 1st defendant on the 2nd charge. I take into account the injury being inflicted onto the police officer was not that serious in nature. However this was an attack on a police officer in the execution of his duty when the 1st defendant was being intercepted for investigation. Bearing in mind all the circumstances, I consider that an immediate custodial sentence is warranted.

Having taken into account all the circumstances and the facts of the case, I will adopt 3 weeks as the starting point for the 2nd charge. The 1st defendant pleaded guilty to this charge at an early stage, and I will give him the full one-third discount. So the sentence for the 2nd charge after the discount is one of 2 weeks’ imprisonment.

Bearing in mind all the circumstances of the case, I order the sentence in the 2nd charge to be served totally concurrent with the sentence of the 1st defendant in the 1st charge. So the sentence for the 1st defendant for both Charge 1 and Charge 2 is one of 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

I shall now come to the 3rd charge of robbery. Most of the aggravating feature that applied to the first robbery also applied to this robbery. The two of them were acting in concert and this was a premeditated robbery. Apparently it was planned by the 1st defendant who took the 2nd defendant there, and he was the one who provided the two knives for the use of the two of them during the robbery.

The victim Mr Ching was threatened by the use of knives, one being held by the 1st defendant, the other being held by the 2nd defendant. The robbery occurred at the common part of an industrial building. When it occurred, Mr Ching was being hijacked at the lift lobby of the industrial building, and he was then taken to the rear staircase. So it occurred at the common part of an industrial building.

The amount of the stolen property included one Rolex watch, one mobile phone and cash of $30,000. The total amount was quite significant. Also I took into account the fact that Mr Ching was threatened and he was really scared by seeing the two knives being used on him. In respect of the role and culpability of the two defendants, it would appear that the 1st defendant was the mastermind who had arranged and prepared the robberies. He was the one who prepared the two knives for use in the robbery. He was the one who picked up the 2nd defendant and drove him to San Po Kong. Of course I obtained all those facts from the cautioned statement of the 2nd defendant which can only be used as evidence against the 2nd defendant. But I do accept the mitigation by counsel that the 2nd defendant was not the mastermind of this robbery.

In respect of the mitigating feature, I accept that both defendants pleaded guilty at an early stage. In respect of the 1st defendant, for Charge 3 I would adopt a starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment. In respect of the 2nd defendant, for Charge 3 I would adopt a starting point of 6 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.

The 1st defendant pleaded guilty at an early stage and is entitled to the full one-third discount. So in respect of Charge 3 he is sentenced to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

In respect of the 2nd defendant, taking into account his role and culpability, his plea of guilty and all the information laid before me by counsel, he is given a 45 per cent discount and sentenced to 3 years 8 months’ imprisonment.

In considering the overall sentence to be served by the two defendants, I bear in mind the principle of totality, the overall facts of this case, all the submissions by counsel in mitigation, the plea of guilty and the information laid before me, etc.

In respect of the 1st defendant, I consider that the overall sentence to be served by him in respect of the two robberies should be 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment after the discount. That would be equivalent to an overall starting point of 10 years before the discount. To achieve that result, I would order that 1 year and 4 months of the 1st defendant’s sentence for Charge 3 to be served consecutively to his sentence for Charges 1 and 2. So the ultimate overall sentence for all three charges in respect of the 1st defendant is 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

I shall now come to the 2nd defendant. Having taken into account the principle of totality, his overall role and culpability in this matter, the facts and submission by counsel and the information laid before me, I consider that the overall sentence to be imposed for both robberies after the discount should be 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. That is equivalent to a starting point of 9½ years before the 45 per cent discount.

To achieve this result, I will order that 1 year of the 2nd defendant’s sentence in Charge 3 to be served consecutively to his sentence in respect of Charge 1. So the overall sentence to be served by the 2nd defendant for all two charges is 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

I have also taken into account the information before me about his voluntary services. I was informed that he had performed about three to four years of voluntary services to assist the elderly and also the poor families. In view of that matter, I consider that it is appropriate to exercise my discretion to give him a further reduction of 3 months from the overall sentence. So the overall sentence to be served by the 2nd defendant should be one of 5 years’ imprisonment.

If it needs to be clarified, I will adjust the ultimate sentence for the 2nd defendant in respect of the 1st charge from 4 years and 3 months to 4 years’ imprisonment. In respect of Charge No. 3, to achieve the result of the extra reduction for his good character, his sentence remains as 3 years and 8 months but only 1 year of that sentence is to be served consecutively to the sentence in Charge 1. So the overall sentence would be one of 5 years’ imprisonment for the 2nd defendant for both charges.