HKSAR v. CHUANG SHU NGONG

DCCC566/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 566 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

The Charge and the Facts

1.  This morning, the Defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.

2.  The facts were these : in the afternoon of 14 April 2011, while PW1, a female aged 35, was washing her hands inside a public toilet near the Sha Tin Town Hall, the Defendant suddenly dashed in. He then used a paper cutter with an 8-cm long blade exposed to point at PW1 and demanded money from her. PW1 refused.

3.  At the time, PW1’s 1-year-old daughter was with her and was sitting in a baby cart. PW1’s handbag was hanging at the back of the cart. On seeing that, the Defendant tried to take away PW1’s handbag. PW1 struggled. The Defendant finally managed to take PW1’s wallet, cash of RMB 200, some cards and one iPone from inside PW1’s handbag and fled. The properties were valued at a total of HK$4,650.

4.  After the Defendant had left the toilet, a civic-minded passer-by assisted in subduing him. When the police later arrested the Defendant and cautioned him, the Defendant made full admissions and said that as he had just been released from the prison, he needed money for meals.

5.  During the robbery, no injuries were caused to PW1 and her daughter. The stolen properties were all recovered.

Mitigation

6.  The Defendant is aged 32. He is married with two children, one aged 4 and another aged 12. His wife is a Mainlander and would come to Hong Kong to take care of the children from time to time by way of 2-way permits.

7.  The Defendant was born in the Mainland and he came to settle in Hong Kong in 1990. After completing Primary 6 here, he started working as a goldsmith trainee. Later, he worked as a van attendant. He twice suffered injuries while at work, one in 2006 and another in 2008. It was said that the injury he sustained in 2008 has affected his working ability and he could no longer carry heavy goods or work long hours. Since then, he has not had any stable job. However, the Defendant had assisted his mother in selling vegetables until she passed away in February this year.

8.  Mr. Tang for the Defendant told the court that since March this year, the Defendant started receiving comprehensive social security in the amount of HK$6,100 for his family. Prior to his arrest, he was living with his father, his younger brother and his children in a public housing unit.

9.  It was said that, on the day in question, the Defendant’s father complained to the Defendant that he was not making any financial contribution to the family. As a result, the Defendant went to buy a paper cutter from a bookshop and committed the offence. I have examined the paper cutter in court. It was an old and rusty cutter. How the Defendant managed to buy such a cutter from a bookshop is beyond comprehension. However, irrespective of where the Defendant got hold of the cutter, it remains a fact that such a cutter was displayed to PW1 at the time.

10.  The Defendant has been before the court on two previous occasions. One in 2000 and another in 2010. One conviction was possession of equipment fit for smoking a dangerous drug. The other was burglary for which he was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment on 5 July 2010. The Defendant was only released on 14 January 2011. Yet, just 3 months later, he committed the present offence.

11.  In mitigation, it was said that the Defendant did not intend to hurt PW1, nor her daughter. The cutter was only displayed to PW1 for a brief moment and was only pointed generally at her direction, not at any particular part of PW1’s body. Such was accepted by the prosecution. Mr. Tang also emphasized that the robbery took place not in private premises, and it was during daytime, not at night. In view of the Defendant’s remorse, Mr. Tang asked, on behalf of the Defendant, for a lenient sentence.

Sentencing Considerations

12.  The tariff for armed robbery was laid down in Mo Kwong-sang v R [1981] HKLR 610.

13.  In this case, the Defendant’s tailing PW1 and his barging into the female toilet made the case more serious. The fact that the Defendant snatched PW1’s handbag from the back of the baby cart without any regard to the safety of the baby was also an aggravating factor. Although the paper cutter was only displayed for a short time and no one was injured during the robbery, it was the use of weapon which should be deterred for once a weapon was employed, the result could never be predicted with precision. Injuries to a victim might be caused by the weapon in many ways although initially the weapon was only pointed at the victim from a distance.   

14.  Therefore, after considering the facts of this case and the tariff, as well as the fact that the Defendant committed this offence shortly after his release from the prison, I am going to adopt a starting point of 5½ years.

The Sentence Imposed

15.  I have carefully considered the mitigation of the Defendant. However, other than his plea which would entitle him to a one-third discount, I find nothing which would warrant any further reduction in sentence.

16.  Therefore, the Defendant is going to serve a term of 44 months for this charge.