HKSAR v. MAROOF RIZWAN

DCCC 494/2025

[2026] HKDC 1080

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 494 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

The Plea

1.  The Defendant (“D”) pleaded guilty to two charges, attempted robbery and taking conveyance without authority, contrary to sections 10 and 14(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210 and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200.

Agreed facts

Missing Vehicle 1

2.  At the material time, Mr Yu (PW1) was the registered owner of private car XZ**** (“Vehicle 1”).  There was only one key to Vehicle 1, which was in PW1’s possession.  He never authorized anyone to use Vehicle 1.

3.  At around 11 pm on 8 July 2024, PW1 parked Vehicle 1 in Yuen Long.  At around 11:00 am on 9 July 2024, PW1 found Vehicle 1 missing and thus reported to the Police.

CCTV Tracing

Vehicle 1 found on 16-07-2024

4.  CCTV installed at different locations in Mongkok and Sham Shui Po captured the following:

(a) At around 6:23 pm on 16 July 2024, Vehicle 1 was found outside Police Sports and Recreation Club, Sai Yeung Choi Street North, Mongkok. D and two unknown males alighted from Vehicle 1.

(b) At around 7:03 pm on the same day, Vehicle 1 was found driving behind another private car TT**** (“Vehicle 2”) along Sai Yeung Choi Street North, Mongkok. The registered owner of vehicle was Mr Chik (PW3).

(c) At around 7:07 pm on the same day, Vehicle 2 was found at 18 Tai Po Road, Sham Shui Po and was parked thereat. Meanwhile, the said two unknown males walked past and was staring at Vehicle 2.

(d) At around 7:09 pm on the same day, Ms Wang (PW5), carrying a suitcase, boarded Vehicle 2. Vehicle 1 was parked behind Vehicle 2 at that time.

Using force while stealing

5.  At around 7:20 pm on 16 July 2024, Ms Wang (PW5) alighted from Vehicle 2 outside United Chinese Bank Building, No 18 Tai Po Road, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, in Hong Kong.  At that time, she was carrying with her a black colour suitcase (“the suitcase”) containing cash. Suddenly, a South Asian male rushed towards her and tried to snatch the suitcase from PW5 by pulling the handle away from her.  The male tried to pull the suitcase towards Vehicle 1, of which the rear passenger door was open at that time.

6.  PW5 felt someone behind her was pushing her towards Vehicle 1.  Meanwhile, another unknown male was pulling her suitcase backwards.  PW5, still holding the suitcase, was caused to step backwards.  PW5 held on to the suitcase and shouted for help.  A passer-by, Mr Lin (PW6), intervened to help PW5. (Charge 1 - Attempted robbery)

Fleeing - Role of defendant - Driver

7.  The two males then boarded Vehicle 1 and fled.  One of them got on to the front passenger seat and the other got on the rear passenger seat.  Vehicle 1 was then driven away by D, who has been identified by PW6 as the driver.  The above was captured by a CCTV installed nearby.

8.  At about 7:23 pm on the same day, Vehicle 1 arrived at Tung Choi Street near the Nullah Place, Mongkok.  D and two unknown males alighted from Vehicle 1 and walked towards Tung Choi Street together.  Then, D and the two males got on a taxi.  The above was captured by a CCTV installed nearby.

9.  At about 8:26 pm on the same day, Vehicle 1 was located at the junction between Tung Choi Street and Nullah Street.  No one was on board and its windscreen and keyhole had been damaged. (Charge 2 – Taking conveyance without authority)

Potential loss

10.  Further investigation by Police, Exhibit officer DPC8533 (PW15) checked the suitcase and counted the cash therein and found it containing $10,818,000.

Fingerprint comparison

11.  Police summoned fingerprint examination team officer to the scene and collected various fingerprint samples from Vehicle 1.  Upon subsequent fingerprint comparison and examination, D’s fingerprint was found at the front interior offside handle of Vehicle 1.

Arrest and caution

12.  At 8:28 pm on 17 July 2024, D was arrested by DPC15292 (PW14).  Under caution in Punti, D admitted in Punti that he had been paid by someone to drive (有人俾錢我揸車但我冇搶嘢).

Offences

13.  At all the material times on 16 July 2024, D outside United Chinese Bank Building, No 18 Tai Po Road, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, together with other persons unknown, attempted to rob Ms Wang. (Charge 1 - Attempted robbery).

14.  At all the material times on 16 July 2024, D at Kowloon, together with other persons, without the consent of the owner or other lawful authority, took a conveyance, namely one private car bearing registration mark XZ****, for his own or anther’s use. (Charge 2 – Taking conveyance without authority)

Criminal record & background

15.  D is aged 30 (aged 28 at the time of the present offence), educated up to secondary form 2.  He was immigrated from Pakistan in 2009 and became Hong Kong resident.  D has 4 previous convictions in May 2024, among various sentence, 4 months’ imprisonment suspended for 3 years was imposed for the conviction of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice.  D was in breach of the suspended sentence.  Counsel for D Mr Ng did not mention this in his written submission, he clarified that his client understood the activation of the suspended sentence and asked the court to consider the totality principle.  

Mitigation

16.  Mr Ng stressed on the mitigating factors as follows.  Firstly, D entered early guilty plea.  Secondly, “there is no direct evidence from the prosecution witnesses as to amount of cash in the suitcase.” 

17.  D is remorseful for his wrongful act. 

Discussion

18.  Regarding the amount of cash in the suitcase, I failed to understand how it is relevant to mitigation.  D admitted his role as driver in an attempted robbery and joint enterprise.  Police officer has counted the amount of cash.  The victim and her suitcase was apparently the robbers’ target, in addition to the value of the property in a robbery case are factors for sentencing consideration.     

19.  That said, robbery is a serious offence, with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. 

20.  In The Queen v Yau Kwok Tung [1987] HKLR 782, the Court of Appeal held that a sentence of 4 years is at the top end of the tariff for robberies where weapons were not displayed and 5 years where weapons were displayed: Mo Kwong-sang [1981] HKLR 610.

21.  I adopt a starting point of 4 years and 3 months, taking into account the fact that the offence involved at least 3 offenders, bearing in mind there are other masterminds behind.

22.  D has entered early guilty plea to the 1st charge.  He shall be entitled to the customary 1/3 discount in sentence.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify another reduction in sentence.  That arrives at a sentence of 34 months’ imprisonment for charge 1.

23.  Regarding charge 2, in mitigation, Mr Ng invited the court to consider HKSAR v Andrianiaina [2017] 2 HKLRD 500.  In that case, it is propounded that among other factors, usual sentence after guilty plea is from 6 to 12 months’ imprisonment.

24.  There is no sentencing guideline for offence like charge 2.   This offence could be committed in a wide range of scenarios ranging from taking others’ car for a joyride at one end to taking others’ car with the participation of a serious crime at the other end as the court observed in The Queen v Tam, Simon HCMA 489 and 490/1996.  In that case, the appellant pleaded guilty to a total of three counts of taking conveyance without authority as well as other offences.  He was sentenced to a concurrent term of 6 months’ imprisonment for one count of taking conveyance without authority, in which the purpose of such taking of vehicle was for a joyride, as well as 12 months’ imprisonment for other two counts of taking conveyance in connection with the commission of theft offences.  The appellate court there was satisfied that the sentence of 6 to 12 months imposed after plea was appropriate.

25.  In Andrianiaina [2017] 2 HKLRD 500, the Court of Appeal observed that the taking of the vehicle without authority was a single offence and that defendant was of previous good character, and upheld the starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment reduced from one of 12 months.

26.  In the present case, D admitted to having taken the car and driven it to the scene with intent to steal from a targeted person, the taking of the vehicle is not only connected with serious crime, the use of the stolen vehicle makes detection more difficult.

27.  In these circumstances, I shall adopt 12 months as the starting point, reducing it to 8 months after the full one-third discount for his timely guilty plea. 

28.  Lastly, despite warning when suspended sentence was imposed, D continued to commit the present offence, the norm is to activate the suspended sentence of 4 months (WKCC 3924/2023). I do not see any exception here. 

29.  In the light of the totality principle and avoid sentence being excessive, I order that charge 2 and the activated suspended sentence be made concurrent, with 6 months being consecutive to charge 1, the final sentence is 40 months’ imprisonment.