HKSAR v. TSANG KWONG-SHING

DCCC 720/2021

[2021] HKDC 1512

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 720 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

Reasons for Sentence

________________________

1.  The defendant has pleaded to one count of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2.  The particulars are that on 15 January 2021, in a Wellcome supermarket, Ground Floor, 22-26 Yee On Street, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, he robbed a staff member of $6,000.20.

3.  The facts that the defendant has agreed are straightforward.  In the early hours of that morning, the defendant entered the supermarket at about 12:30 am.  And at about 1:49 am when the cashier entered the manager’s office of the supermarket with a bag of cash from two cash registers containing the daily takings, she suddenly heard a male’s voice behind her saying, “Give me all the money.”.

4.  She turned to see the defendant had entered the manager’s room and was pointing a fruit knife at her.  She told him she had no money.  But he said that there was money in the canvas bag she was carrying.  Out of fear for her own safety, she handed him the bag.  He ran toward the entrance of the supermarket.

5.  The cashier chased after him shouting, “Robbery with a knife, call the police.”  Another member of staff in the supermarket saw the defendant run out and also chased after him.  That staff member, Mr Chan, soon grabbed the defendant and stopped him.  He disarmed the defendant of his knife.  The police arrived not long after that and arrested the defendant.

6.  Under caution, the defendant said he had robbed because he owed money to loan sharks.  Later during a video-recorded interview, the defendant elaborated and said he owed a debt of around $300,000.  He entered the supermarket that morning and loitered around for more than an hour, plucking up the courage to commit the robbery.  He admitted he then robbed the cashier inside the manager’s room and had a knife he brought from home.  The money in the canvas bag, $6,000.20, was recovered and no loss was suffered.

Mitigation

7.  The defendant is 61 years old, divorced and has no children.  He has eight siblings and was living with one of them at the time of his arrest.  He was then a chef earning about $20,000.  He is not a man of a clear record but his convictions were in 1986 and are not similar to this offence.  He was sentenced to probation for both.

8.  Defence counsel, Mr Hui, has said all he can say on behalf of the defendant.  His best mitigation is his plea of guilty.  I have been told of his long, steady employment history and I have had sight of many letters of references submitted.  However, the defendant accumulated debts of around $350,000 and because of pressure from the debt collectors to maintain repayment, he committed the present offence out of desperation.

9.  After he was arrested, he confessed to his elder sisters that he was in debt and they have repaid the debts on his behalf.  It was submitted that he made a full admission to the police upon his arrest and fully cooperated.  It was stressed he will not reoffend.  I have a letter of mitigation from the defendant himself. 

10.  Mr Hui has referred me to the sentencing guidelines where a robbery is committed and a knife or dangerous weapon was displayed in the course of a robbery.  The authority of Mo Kwong Sang v The Queen [1981] 1 HKLR 610 held that where a defendant displayed a knife or other dangerous weapon to a victim, the sentence after trial should be 5 years’ imprisonment.

Reasons for Sentence

11.  I have considered everything said in mitigation, the defendant’s explanation for committing the offence and the facts of the case.  I repeat, the defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty.

12.  Robbery is a serious offence and will attract a deterrent sentence.  A 5-year starting point is appropriate here where the defendant has displayed a knife. 

13.  In my opinion, there is an additional aggravating factor and that is the defendant chose a supermarket opened, although not overnight, until the early hours of the morning.  I have referred myself to HKSAR v Lam Hoi, CACC 105/2016, at paragraph 54, as well as HKSAR v Wong Cheung [2011] 5 HKLRD 171.  Similar places such as petrol stations and convenience stores that are open around the clock or very late are susceptible to robbery and can be distinguished.  A deterrent sentence is warranted to deter offenders from targeting such places to rob.  For this aggravating factor, I increase that 5-year starting point by 3 months.

14.  The defendant indicated he had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and therefore he is entitled to a one-third discount in sentence.  There are no other mitigation factors of sufficient weight to justify any further reduction.

15.  After that discount is applied to a starting point of 5 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, the defendant is accordingly sentenced to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.