COURT: This case concerns three defendants. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants all pleaded guilty to respective charges of robbery on 2 October 2025 before a Magistrate at committal proceedings in Eastern Magistracy. They have been committed here to the Court of First Instance for sentence.
For the 1st and 2nd defendants, they each pleaded guilty to two charges on the indictment, which are Charges 1 and 2. For the 3rd defendant, he pleaded guilty to the 2nd charge only. As I stated already, all three charges relate to the offence of robbery.
In Charge 1, the 1st and 2nd defendants admitted that on 21 May 2023, at Luen Tong Carpark, No. 46 Sheung On Street, Chai Wan, in Hong Kong, they robbed Chung Chi-man of cash, HK$17,600 and RMB400.
As regards the 2nd charge, all three defendants admitted that on 19 November 2023, at the same carpark, they robbed Fung Lo-tin of HK$28,000 cash and RMB2,150 in cash.
At the outset, I will say that this carpark, which is the Luen Tong Carpark, had a CCTV which captured the relevant scene and the defendants at the material time. I will start off with the 1st charge, which in the Summary of Facts is referred to as the “1st incident”. I state at this stage that the defendants admitted the Summary of Facts to be correct.
On the CCTV, the 1st and 2nd defendants were seen to enter this carpark at about 7.43 pm on 21 May 2023. Whilst in this carpark, they wandered around in a suspicious manner and kept peeping into parked cars.
At around 8.59 pm, the victim in Charge 1, Mr Chung, drove his vehicle into the carpark. Parked his car and stayed there for about 20 minutes to clean his vehicle. About 20 minutes later at 9.20 pm, he locked the vehicle and headed towards the exit of the carpark.
Suddenly, the 1st and 2nd defendants came out from a gap between some parked cars and pulled Mr Chung towards the gap. Mr Chung put up a struggle by trying to hold onto the bonnet of another parked private car but he was pushed and pulled by the 1st defendant.
They further pushed him onto the ground and the 2nd defendant hit Mr Chung’s head with a hard object for a few times. Whilst the 1st defendant held a knife of about 25 to 30 centimetres in length against Mr Chung’s neck and wrapped his right hand around him. At this point, when Mr Chung saw the knife, he stopped struggling as he was scared.
D1 then asked Mr Chung in Putonghua if his name was Lau. Chung denied that. He was told they would not cause trouble to him if his surname was not Lau. However, still, the 1st and 2nd defendants grabbed Chung’s left and right hand respectively and D1 then searched Chung’s body and found four bank cards, cash of $1,600, RMB400, a phone and the car key of his vehicle.
D1 then took out a white shoelace from the pocket of his trousers and tied up Chung’s hand behind his back. They then escorted Chung back to his vehicle. They opened the vehicle with the car key and pushed Chung into the car. D2 then started the engine. D1 turned off both mobile phones belonging to Chung. D1 then took out Chung’s four bank cards and used the knife to threaten Chung to tell him the passwords of the bank cards.
Again, under such circumstances, Chung surrendered the passwords to D1. D1 then handed over the knife to D2 and left the vehicle. D2 remained in the vehicle to guard Chung, still holding the knife. At around 9.35 pm, D1 left the carpark. At 9.52 pm, again, captured this time by CCTV at the banks, D1 entered the Hong Kong and Shanghai Corporation ATM site at Shop No. 1 to 11, Ground Floor of Block B, Walton Estate on Chai Wan Road. However, he left shortly afterwards.
He then headed to the Bank of East Asia along Chai Wan Road. He entered the Bank of East Asia at 9.57 pm and this time, he inserted three of Chung’s bank cards into the BEA ATM machines. He tried to withdraw $12,000 but failed either due to insufficient balance or that the card was not supported by the BEA ATM machines. Four minutes later, he then left the Bank of East Asia and walked back to the HSBC shop.
At 10.13, he entered the HSBC ATM shop and again inserted all four of Chung’s bank cards into the ATM machine. Subsequently, D2 received a phone call from D1 and D2 then told Chung that the passwords he gave to D1 were incorrect. Chung then told D2 the passwords once again and Chung hung up the call. Eventually, D1 withdrew a total amount of $16,000 on one of the bank cards between 10.15 pm and 10.21 pm. In the next 10 minutes or so he tried to withdraw a further amount of $25,000 but failed as the transaction was rejected. He then left HSBC.
He returned to the carpark at 10.40 pm and to the vehicle where Chung and D2 seated. He did not board the vehicle but threw the four bank cards and six ATM withdrawal slips onto the back passenger seat of the vehicle. D1 then used another white shoelace to tie up Chung’s legs and asked Chung to only leave the vehicle on the next day. D1 and D2 then left the carpark together around 10.44 pm.
Soon afterwards, Chung managed to untie himself and turned on his two phones. He relayed the incident to his wife and daughter who later reported the case to the police. The police attended the scene and suggestion was made to call the banks to inform the banks about what had happened. They were informed that a total of $16,000 was withdrawn at the ATM machine.
The police seized the shoelaces and the six withdrawal slips. It was soon to be found that it was the HSBC card which D1 was able to withdraw $16,000 but none of the other cards were successful. Among the six withdrawal slips two of them contained a fingerprint belonging to D1.
The police record showed that D1 was convicted of robbery, burglary, and remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration, that is being an illegal immigrant in Hong Kong, in 1995. At that time he was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment and had a different name. His name at that time was Chan Tim-yuen.
I turn now to the 2nd charge and the second incident which was on 19 November 2023.
On 19 November, the three defendants admitted to a robbery at the same carpark against the victim in Charge 2, Mr Fung, which occurred at about 8.30 pm. What is of importance here is that these three defendants entered Hong Kong on that same day together at about 3.12 pm in the afternoon. So within six hours of arriving in Hong Kong they went to the same carpark as the incident in Charge 1 and robbed another driver.
I shall now go through the details of that 2nd charge.
Again, on CCTV recording at the immigration port at the China Ferry Terminal, D1, D2 and D3 entered Hong Kong through the e-Channel at about 3.12 pm. They then headed to Chungking Mansions in Tsim Sha Tsui and bought mobile phone SIM cards. At about 7.43 pm, they appeared at Chai Wan MTR. They then took a taxi near the fire station and headed to the same carpark together.
At 8.20 pm, Mr Fung, the victim of Charge 2 parked his vehicle at the carpark and alighted from it about five minutes later and headed to the exit of the carpark. All of a sudden one of the three defendants jumped off a truck nearby and asked Mr Fung in Putonghua whether he was someone else. He could not hear the exact name clearly. He denied and planned to move on. However, one of the defendants then pushed him onto the ground whilst one of the two males tried to tie up Mr Fung’s foot but he struggled fiercely.
Shortly afterwards, Mr Fung felt his head was kicked from different angles continuously. Despite trying to protect his head, Mr Fung felt dizzy and had blurred vision. They had stopped kicking his head for a while but then after about half a minute continued to kick his head of which assault lasted for about 10 minutes.
One of the three defendants then grabbed Mr Fung’s belt bag and searched it. One of the males then tried to pull Mr Fung’s leg to drag him away but he again fiercely struggled. Fung managed to crawl under the bottom part of another vehicle and one of the defendants tried to pull him out continuously by pulling his legs. However, Mr Fung’s head was kicked again by these males.
During this time his shirt was torn off due to the struggle. Mr Fung held onto the bottom frame of the vehicle tightly so that these three defendants could not drag him out again. Mr Fung heard there was someone else closing a car door nearby and therefore yelled out for help but to no avail. However, at this time D1 to D3 immediately fled the scene.
Mr Fung then phoned one of his friends on his phone and asked that friend to report it to the police and then slowly crawled his way out from the bottom of the vehicle to wait for the police to come. He had lost HK$28,000 and RMB2,150.
The three defendants boarded a taxi and left the scene and at about 10.30 pm they were seen to enter a guesthouse called Hong Kong Full Harvest Inn in Sai Yeung Choi Street, Mong Kok. The owner of the guesthouse confirmed the three defendants rented the room for three nights and paid $800 for the first two days. During the registration, D3 provided his ID document.
On 22 November at around 9.17 am, the 1st to 3rd defendants checked out from the guesthouse. Around 9.50 am, D1 and D3 entered China Hong Kong City and D3 entered the departure hall alone. D3 was subsequently intercepted at the China Ferry Terminal. He was arrested and cautioned but remained silent. Later that day on 22 November, D1 and D2 were also intercepted at the Hong Kong Macau Ferry Terminal.
Upon a body search a total amount of $350 and RMB14,000 and MOP50 cash and a mobile phone were seized from D1. Cash of $3,000 and an Octopus card was seized from D2. I should say RMB cash of 800 was seized from D3.
Video-recorded interviews were conducted with D1. He in essence admitted the facts of what I have just read. He admitted he was the one that withdrew the cash, that he was Chan Tim-yuen who was convicted of robbery and burglary in 1995, and he identified himself in the CCTV footage captured at the BEA and HSBC ATM machines. He admitted he was the one that tied Chung’s hands and legs and that he had split the money with D2. He admitted he was wearing a hat and facial mask at the material time of the first robbery.
In respect to the second robbery, he entered Hong Kong with D2 and D3 and admitted he had robbed and kicked Mr Fung’s head. A black hat seized from the scene underneath the second vehicle, he admitted that hat belonged to him and he might have left it behind during the struggle. He admitted they stayed at the guesthouse in Mong Kok. He was shown CCTV screen captures of them at the guesthouse and he identified himself, D2 and D3 on the various CCTV screen captures.
There was another VRI conducted with D2 and he also admitted the facts of the incident. He claimed that D1 had given him $4,000 after the first robbery and that he had spent it all. He admitted that he had used the knife to threaten Mr Chung whilst in the vehicle and whilst D1 had left to withdraw the money.
In respect to the second incident, he admitted he came together with D1 and D3 and that he and D3 were given $5,000 by D1 after the robbery. When being shown the CCTV screen captures, he identified himself, D1 and D3. He admitted that he was about to depart from Hong Kong on 23 November prior to his arrest.
As to the 3rd defendant, in the VRIs, he again admitted the facts in relation to the second robbery. He said that during the assault on Mr Fung, he had grabbed Mr Fung’s legs and he had received $5,000 after the robbery. He stayed at the guesthouse with D1 and D2 and he identified himself, D1 and D2 in the various CCTV screen captures.
DNA of D2 was found on the two shoelaces which were used to tie up Mr Chung which were seized from vehicle 1. DNA of D2 was also found on inside surfaces of a pair of socks and a mask found which were thrown away outside the guesthouse.
DNA of Mr Fung was found on blood stains on the back of the leather jacket seized from D1 and on the underside of the outsole of the left shoe, of a pair of sport shoes, seized from D2. DNA of PW2 and D2 were also found from the jacket seized from D1.
According to the records kept by the Immigration Department, D1 and D2 arrived in Hong Kong via Lo Wu Control Point on 20 May at 10.43 am and left on 22 May at 1.30 pm. In addition, D1 to D3 arrived in Hong Kong via China Ferry Terminal on 19 November at 3.11 pm to 3.12 pm.
With respect to the victim of the 1st charge, Mr Chung, there was a mild abrasion on the left side of the neck which appears to be left by the knife.
In relation to Mr Fung, I shall not read the detailed injuries of him but he was admitted to the Accident and Emergency of Pamela Youde Hospital and suffered serious injuries, mostly to the head area and pain over the neck. He had many tests done to him. As I said, I will not go into the injuries suffered but I will just say that they were serious injuries.
I now turn to the mitigation by the defendants.
Mr William Hui, counsel for the 1st defendant, Mr Chau for the 2nd defendant and Ms Maria So, for the 3rd defendant, have all submitted has detailed written mitigation for their clients. I have taken into account all they have had to say. Obviously with these three defendants, the only mitigating factor is their plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity.
I turn first to deal with the 1st defendant. He is 54 years old, divorced, and has a 13-year-old daughter with intellectual disability who is educated to Primary 5. He has diabetes and colon cancer and has undergone surgery whilst in mainland. Prior to coming to Hong Kong, he had been working as a chef in Jiangxi province since 2002 with a monthly salary of RMB6,000.
As I have already mentioned, he has three previous convictions in 1995 of robbery, burglary and illegal remaining in Hong Kong, to which at that time he was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. As is stated by Mr Hui, he was in a poor financial status and in need of money for living and medical expenses for himself and his daughter and the reason for him committing these present offences he says is due to financial pressure.
I turn now to D2. He is 36 years of age. He is of clear record. He is married with four children aged 15, 13, 12 and 8. He has been educated up to Form 3. His father passed away when he was 8 years old. His last employment was selling water pumps in mainland and earning a salary between RMB7,000 and RMB10,000 a month. D2 was the sole breadwinner of his family.
He has written a letter in mitigation to this court which I have had regard to. He shows deep regret and remorse. He feels the loss of his freedom as he is not able to see his family, his mother, and now his mother has to shoulder the family financial burden because his wife has to look after all his children. He now appreciates life and says he will foster himself to live a better life.
I now turn to the 3rd defendant. He is 42 years of age, single, and of clear record. Prior to committing this offence in Hong Kong, he lived with his parents in mainland, however his father passed away in December 2024. His mother has Alzheimer’s and is in ill health.
He was the main breadwinner of his parents as they retired as farmers a few years ago and he took up responsibility of caring for them. He has an elder sister but she has her own family and is unable to support his parents. He has been educated up to Form 1. He committed this offence he says so his parents could live a better life. He was told by his friends to come to Hong Kong to earn quick cash. He followed D1’s instructions.
He has also written a letter of mitigation to the court which I have taken into account. He says because he missed his father’s funeral because he was incarcerated in Hong Kong, he hopes his court will give him a sentence so that he can go back and be with his mother and he does not wish to not be there if and when his mother passes. He is again remorseful for his crimes. I should say that has also D2 written a letter of mitigation.
Defendants, you are all residents from the mainland. You entered Hong Kong on this occasion on two-way permits. You deliberately entered Hong Kong to commit this very, very serious offence of robbery. This was well planned and premeditated. The victims were lonely car drivers having parked their car at a carpark which was an open-air carpark at night and dark. You preyed on single drivers when there was at least two, if not three, of you who intended to rob them.
For the first robbery you had been suspiciously wandering around the carpark for approximately an hour until you targeted the first victim. You were armed with a long, dangerous knife. You were armed with shoelaces knowing that they were intended to use to tie up the victims. Fortunately, Mr Chung in Count 1 was not so seriously wounded. That is probably because he did not struggle because you had that long, sharp, scary knife.
Nevertheless, in regards to Mr Chung, you still hit his head with something hard. Mr Chau tells me that this hard object was a branch which was probably found in the carpark. I am not able to say that I accept that but Mr Chung felt, it was something which was hard, which hit his head a few times.
Now, in this case, let me go to Charge 1 first of all, of course the amount of money stolen was HK$17,600 plus RMB4,000. For an armed robbery, the guideline case is that of Mo Kwong Sang v R [1981] HKLR 610. It was established that the appropriate sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery where the accused carries a knife or other dangerous weapon which is displayed to the victim should be 5 years’ imprisonment. If there is physical violence including tying up victims, a sentence of 7 years should be considered.
All these factors are there which warrants 7 years’ imprisonment. However, there are further aggravating factors, one of those being that you did hit his head with something hard and the case of Yang Xingyun, CACC 155/2016 is referred to.
Further, you had detained Mr Chung for an hour, threatened him with a knife whilst D1 went to obtain money from the ATM machine. So the theft of ATM cards and detention of a victim whilst money was obtained, and the case I refer to is HKSAR v Wang Wei [2010] 5 HKC 45.
You held him captive and forced his passwords out of him with the threat of a knife at him and that you had deliberately come to Hong Kong to commit an offence whilst you were a visitor. So for this charge, D1 and D2, I take a starting point of 9 years’ imprisonment.
I will say for D1, although you have a similar, very bad record of burglary and robbery, I do not consider this to be an aggravating factor to enhance your sentence further, because those offences were committed now some 30 years ago. So giving you the customary one-third discount for your early plea of guilty, the sentence for D1 and D2 on Charge 1 is 6 years’ imprisonment.
For Count 2, it involves all three defendants. In this charge, there was no weapon used but despite there being no weapon, as I mentioned, the victim received serious physical assaults and serious injuries, and those injuries were mostly to his head. He did struggle with you to stop you trying to rob him and you continuously, all three of you, kicked his head for approximately 10 minutes.
During this robbery, he had lost HK$28,000 and RMB2,150. Again, for this offence, the aggravating factors are that you deliberately entered Hong Kong together to commit this offence as a visitor and there were three of you people involved against one lone person. The location to which he was targeted was dark and in an open carpark where there was not many people around or no one around.
In these circumstances, I consider a starting point for this offence of robbery to be one of 7 years’ imprisonment. Giving you the customary one-third discount, D1 to D3’s sentence for Count 2 is 4 years 8 months’ imprisonment.
There is one more case that I wanted to refer to which is the Secretary for Justice v Ma Ping Wah [2000] 2 HKLRD 312 for the theft of ATM cards and passwords.
So regarding the totality principle for D1 and D2, there are two offences of robbery to which you have committed and I consider that a total of 7 years’ imprisonment after you pleaded guilty is the correct sentence.
Therefore, I order 1 year of Count 2 to run consecutive to Count 1, and the remaining terms to run concurrent, which makes for D1 and D2 a total of 7 years’ imprisonment, and for D3, your term is one of 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.