At 11 am on the morning of 3 March 2020, at a time when only members of staff were present, five men were captured on CCTV leaving a vehicle registration number JN9585. That vehicle had been stolen a week earlier and its number plates had been changed. They entered the Tai Sun Jewellery and Gold Shop which is located on the Ground Floor of Fu Ho Building, 3-7 Kau Yuk Road, Yuen Long. They were all wearing masks and caps. One of them was brandishing a knife. Some of them had hammers or an axe which were used to break into the display cabinets.
Seven gold rings and 71 bracelets were stolen. All five then escaped in the vehicle they had arrived in. The whole incident was over in one to two minutes. The value of the goods stolen was $605,091.
Later that day, by chance, a witness saw the vehicle now without a number plate abandoned some seven kilometres away. A knife, axe and hammer, masks, gloves, and discarded clothing were recovered which led in part to the arrest which took place over a period of months thereafter.
The defendant, D3’s fingerprint, was found upon the inside of one of the doors. As he was known to the police, he was arrested on 29 July 2020. At that time, he said he knew nothing but later he admitted taking part in the robbery during a video-recorded interview and he has remained cooperative throughout. As for his own role, the defendant admitted that he had been one of the group who smashed a display cabinet and stole jewellery from within it.
The 3rd defendant is now 22 years of age and was 19 at the time of this offending. He was born and raised in Nepal. He came to Hong Kong in 2014 on a dependent visa sponsored by his father. This offending means that he is at risk of not being able to renew that visa. He is single and lives with his family here in Hong Kong and he has worked as a waiter, delivery worker and as an assistant to a chef.
According to his criminal record, he was dealt with for possession of dangerous drugs in December 2018 when he received DATC and then for common assault in October 2019 for which he received a fine.
He was arrested on 29 July 2020 and has been remanded for 27 months. Unfortunately, the defendant had an accident whilst on remand and his leg was injured by some concrete falling from a collapsed ceiling. Although his leg was not broken or fractured, he did suffer lacerations and bruising and I am told that he has not yet fully recovered and appears to suffer from numbness in his right foot. It is not known if that is permanent. That event has had both a physical and psychological effect on the defendant.
I have a psychiatric report from Dr Chan Wai-hang of the West Kowloon Psychiatric Clinic dated 29 September 2022 and two medical reports from Accident and Emergency at Queen Elizabeth Hospital who treated him for the injuries he incurred as a result of the accident. Whilst I note he continues to receive medication for his mental and physical problems, it would appear as though he is on the slow road to recovery.
For a robbery such as this, the starting point for sentence after trial is accepted to be HKSAR v Mo Kwong Sang(Mo Kwong Sang v R?) [1981] HKLR 610 in which Roberts CJ stated that for an ordinary armed robbery where the accused was carrying a knife or other dangerous weapon but excluding a firearm which he displayed to his victim, the sentence should be one of 5 years’ imprisonment. As a further guide, the court in Mo Kwong Sang indicated that where two men had broken into a private domestic premises at night and threatened a girl who was on her own with a knife, tied her up and ransacked her flat, the appropriate sentence was one of 7 to 8 years.
There are other cases where there has been a robbery in a jewellery shop or a bank where far greater sentences have been passed. In Attorney General v Man Yui To, CAAR 6/1984, the Court of Appeal felt a sentence of between 12 and 15 years was suitable for a robbery where a gun and knives were used against staff. This was affirmed in HKSAR v Pau Lai Sing, CACC 282/2009. The critical feature, however, of these cases was the use of firearms. That was not the case here.
This robbery was carefully planned. A car was stolen some days in advance and the number plates switched. The car was abandoned and the number plates were then taken off it. Someone purchased gloves, masks and hats for the robbers and provided the tools and the knife. It was a robbery of what Mr Percy would describe as a soft target, a jewellery shop situated on the ground floor of the building and particularly susceptible to a robbery such as this. There was a significant unrecoverable loss. Those are aggravating features which attract an uplift in sentence where they are attributable to the participants such as the 3rd defendant.
The countervailing submissions have been that this was a daytime commercial robbery, not one of private premises at night. There were very few people around and no customers present in the shop. Whilst there was a knife, hammer and axe, the hammer and axe were only ever used to smash the cabinets and were not for the purpose of intimidating or threatening the staff. No one was directly threatened even with the knife. No one was attacked or injured. At its highest, the knife might have been brandished.
Where a defendant had a previous record they were not of a similar kind nor were they likely to be violent. This was a very quick robbery, only one to two minutes, and therefore the traumatising effect on the staff was limited.
The starting point I adopt for sentence is one of 5 years. This was a well-organised and pre-planned robbery for which the defendants were recruited. That is an aggravating feature for which I intend to enhance the starting point by 1 year.
The shop was a jewellery shop on the ground floor and vulnerable to attack. Whilst there were only staff present, both the large knife and the axe would have terrified them. They were not to know that they would not be used upon them. They were not to know this would all be over in one to two minutes. There were a considerable number of robbers for one small shop, dressed in black with masks and caps. That too would have been particularly frightening and intimidating and for those aggravating features, I intend to enhance the starting point by a further year to 7 years.
This proved to be a difficult investigation. Not all participants have been brought before the court as of yet. And certainly not those responsible for the planning, if not the execution of this robbery.
The defendant is entitled to a discount for his early plea and for all matters raised by counsel on his behalf. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the defendant will go to prison for 3 years and 10 months, and gentlemen that is 45 per cent.