HKSAR v. CHENG MAN KWAN AND OTHERS

DCCC 1363/2024

[2025] HKDC 1788

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1363 OF 2024

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The three defendants have pleaded guilty to a single charge of robbery committed by them on 28 June 2024 in Castle Peak Road in Tsuen Wan where robbery occurred of the victim. Various were stolen.

2.  The facts as agreed by the defendants show the following: 

The victim was in Castle Peak Road in Tsuen Wan and in his possession he had a rucksack with various items contained within it. He was approached by the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants and two other males known in the facts as Male 1 and 2 who grabbed the victim round the neck. He was told to repay the money. He was forced to the ground and then kicked and punched.

3.  His handbag, his watch and his rucksack, iPhone and tank top were taken away by those four men, that’s D2, D3, Male 1 and 2, and they fled in the direction of Castle Peak Road.  They boarded a vehicle nearby, that was the vehicle driven by the 1^st defendant.

4.  The victim was able to retrieve his rucksack, iPhone and tank top in a nearby rubbish bin.  He was also to ascertain the registration plate of the vehicle that the men escaped in.  The matter was reported to the police.

5.  The 1^st defendant was arrested on 30 June 2024.  He admitted to driving the car on the relevant day and transported people who he said he had recruited to collect a debt from the 1^st prosecution witness.

6.  The 2^nd defendant was arrested on 22 July 2024.  The 3^rd defendant was arrested 19 August 2024. The 1^st defendant was able to give some further details in a video-recorded interview conducted on 1 July 2024.  He said that the victim had borrowed, in fact, a total sum of $160,000 from him and so which had not been repaid and on 28 June 2024 the 1^st defendant had used the Telegram App to recruit individuals for debt collection.  He admitted he had driven the car to pick up three men to collect the debt and he told the men to ask PW1 at the location of the actual debt of the loan which appears to have been farmed out.  He saw the fight and the robbery take place and then drove away the vehicle. 

7.  As far as the 2^nd defendant is concerned, he also conducted a further video-recorded interview on 23 July 2024, admitted he had received a call from a man instructing him to collect a debt.  He then got on the private car, arrived at Tsuen Wan and been involved in the struggle with the 1^st prosecution witness.

8.  The 3^rd defendant also said on 28 June 2024, he was informed of a debt collection task.  He got into a private car.  He was promised $20,000 to $30,000 for the job.  He admitted he also assaulted the 1^st prosecution witness and attempted to drag him into the vehicle.

9.  Most of the incident was captured on CCTV cameras.  There is no dispute from the defendants that they were involved in this robbery either by direct assault and taking of items or by in the 1^st defendant’s case, aiding and abetting by driving the vehicle.

10.  The items stolen were the items which were later recovered by PW1, an iPhone, a handbag and $3,000 cash, items such as a passport, a shaver, a pair of AirPods, card holder, ID card and a Home Visit Permit and an ATM card.  The facts are shown and agreed by defendants showing this is an unarmed robbery.

11.  I will deal with defendants’ antecedents. The 1^st defendant was 28 at the time that the antecedents were taken.  He is a person of clear record in Hong Kong.  The 2^nd defendant is aged 19.  He has a number of previous convictions and is currently in a Training Centre.  The 3^rd defendant also has a criminal record and is aged 23 years old.

12.  I will deal with the mitigation that has been advanced in respect of the defendants.  As far as the 1^st defendant’s mitigation, he is now 29 years old, married with a 3-year-old daughter, 2-year-old son, his wife is a full-time housewife.  His position which was set out in the video-recorded interview is that he knew the victim in 2021, they were in fact friends. And at some point the 1^st defendant extended a loan to the victim which was not repaid, and the result of this, the 1^st defendant hired some people to try to collect what was at that time a legitimate debt from the victim, and they were approached on the Telegram App.

13.  The 1^st defendant accepts his responsibility in this matter, pleaded guilty on the basis he consented and joined the agreement at a later stage.  He had seen what had happened and impliedly consented to the robbery.  He did not stop the people he had recruited, the 2^nd defendant or 3^rd defendant, the other men involved, and he also drew them away from the scene.  The 1^st defendant has a clear record.  He surrendered himself to Tsuen Wan Police Station on 30 June 2024 and gave a voluntary video-recorded interview in the early morning of 1 July 2024 to the police.

14.  In mitigation, it was said I should take into account the 1^st defendant’s plea of guilty, his clear record, his surrender and also a letter written by the 1^st defendant showing his remorse about his involvement in this offence.

15.  As far as the 2^nd defendant is concerned, he is still a young man.  He has an extensive involvement as a young man in criminality.  He is currently in a Training Centre and as a result of that I obtained a further Training Centre report on him.  He admits in his mitigation he was recruited to help or assist in collecting the debt from the 1^st prosecution witness and was involved in the robbery as a result of that.  He has been educated up to Form 3.  He has been employed in the past as a hairdresser.  The 2^nd defendant is currently under, as I said, training at the Training Centre.  He was sentenced in 2023 to a Probation Order for a period of 12 months for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.  He must have committed this offence whilst he was on the Probation Order.  The Probation Order was in fact discharged on 14 August 2024 and he was resentenced to a Detention Centre order which was completed on 10 February 2025.  On 10 February 2025, he pleaded guilty to a charge of common assault and criminal intimidation and false imprisonment, and on 24 February 2025 was sentenced to a Training Centre Order and is currently serving that order.

16.  This defendant has in fact been in custody of some form since 22 July 2024 when he was arrested for this offence.  He has experienced the reformative options of Detention Centre and Training Centre. The Training Centre Report shows the 2^nd defendant is doing reasonably well in that institution.  He is both mentally and physically fit for Detention in Training Centre.  For the general assessment as to behaviour and attitude whilst undergoing training, he is considered suitable for continued or for further detention in a Training Centre.

17.  As far as the 3^rd defendant is concerned, he is now 23 years old.  He was 21 at the time of this offence.  He is educated up to form 2.  He has moved out from his family when he was 20 years old and lived independently since then and has taken various jobs such as supermarket assistant and vehicle attendant and was a warehouse worker earning $14,000 to $15,000 a month.  As a result of the offence, he lost his job and was involved in this offence for an award of between $20,000 to $30,000.

18.  Now I turn to the principles of sentencing which are relevant to all defendants, especially to the 1^st and 3^rd defendants.  It is undisputed the robbery in this case is an unarmed robbery.  There is no actual tariff for that but sentences for unarmed robberies range between 3 to 4½ years’ imprisonment.

19.  I was referred to the case of HKSAR v Ting Chiu [2003] 3 HKLRD at 378 where 4 years’ imprisonment was considered appropriate for an armed robbery committed on a hiking couple by four culprits with the use of little physical violence and involving relatively minor loss of property.  It was said in that and other cases that for an armed robbery the starting point would generally be no more than 4 years’ imprisonment, though it is not necessarily to be regarded as the normal sentence for an unarmed robbery.

20.  I was referred also to cases where starting points of between 3 years and 3.3 years have been adopted for unarmed robbery involving a loan robber preying on a loan person and injuring the victim.  As far as this case is concerned, I have got to take into account the fact that the robbery originated out of a debt collection exercise for what was, as the 1^st defendant maintains a legitimate debt owed to him. Nevertheless, this involves a robbery involving multiple people at night with a degree of violence involved.  The victim was injured and was observed to have abrasions on his cheek and lips, swelling and abrasions on his left forearm and abrasions on both knees.  These are injuries which are non-permanent.

21.  It is necessary in respect of the defendants to posit a starting point for sentence in respect of an offence such as this nature taking into account the aggravating factors that I have already set out.  Insofar as the sentence of imprisonment is appropriate for a defendant, it seems to me there is little to distinguish between the 1^st and 3^rd defendants in this case who are certainly eligible for an immediate sentence of imprisonment.

22.  I consider the appropriate starting point for sentence in respect of this offence taking into account all the factors I have set out is one of 42 months’ imprisonment, that is 3½ years’ imprisonment.

23.  In respect of the 1^st and 3^rd defendants, they are entitled to a full one-third discount from that which would lead to a sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment in respect of them. 

24.  As far as the 2^nd defendant is concerned, there are different factors in respect of sentencing for him.   He is still of an age where a restorative sentence can be imposed.  He is currently detained in a Training Centre and I do not consider it appropriate in his case to change or disrupt the training he is already receiving.  He has, as I have said already, been detained for a considerable period since July of 2024.  I consider that a Training Centre Order is the appropriate order in his case. 

25.  So the final order that I will make in respect of this indictment are as far as the 1^st defendant receives a sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment; the 2^nd  defendant, a sentence of Training Centre and the 3^rd defendant, a sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment.  Those will be the orders of the court.