HKSAR v. CHOW KWONG FAI

 DCCC756/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 756 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Defendant, you pleaded guilty to a single offence of attempted robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, and section 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. You admitted the facts and I convicted you. The facts were as follows.

2.  Miss Chan Chiang-chu (PW1) is an assistant at 7-Eleven Store at Ngan Wan Road, Mui Wo. Miss Wong Mei-ki (PW2) is the manager. At 2 am on 10 March 2008, you went to the shop and borrowed $500 from PW1 with the promise of returning it the next morning. This you failed to do. Then at about 2 am on 11 March 2008, you went back to the shop and asked PW1 to loan you a further $100. PW1 refused and asked you to repay the $500. You promised to do so. However, PW1 repeatedly asked you to repay up to the end of 2008 but you failed.

3.  At 3.25 am on 25 May of this year, a male entered the shop. His head was covered by a plastic bag. He produced a 7‑inch knife and demanded that PW1 take out all of the money. PW1 shouted, “What are you doing?” The man fled empty-handed. No one was injured. Nothing was lost.

4.  PW1 and PW2 viewed the CCTV and found the voice and walking style resembled you. At 8.10 pm the next day police arrested you. Under caution, you admitted taking the knife to threaten PW1. You said you were furious that she had told others of the $500 you owed her. You covered your head with a plastic bag and left empty-handed. You said you threw the knife and the plastic bag into the sea and placed your shorts and T-shirt in a rubbish bin.

5.  You are a person of hitherto clear record. As you will recall, on the day of plea I adjourned the case until today for taking of a probation officer’s background report. That report is now before the court and has been read by me. I understand that you agree with its contents.

6.  The prosecution referred me to the standard sentencing authority of Mo Kwong Sang. That case provides authority for a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment where it is an ordinary case of robbery and a knife is displayed. Very fairly, Miss Ng on behalf of the prosecution conceded that there were differences in the present case.

7.  On your behalf, Miss Lee entered mitigation. She told me you were 28 years of age and stressed your clear record. She confirmed that the offence occurred because you were angry with the victim because she broadcast your failure to repay a debt of $500. She said you were genuinely remorseful and willing to repay the debt. She stressed that this was attempted robbery, nothing was actually taken and no actual violence was used. She indicated that your family are here to support you. She referred me to various positive comments in the probation officer’s report and read a letter of apology, which you had written to the victim.

8.  In sentencing you, I took into account the nature and facts of the case, the mitigation advanced and the contents of the probation officer’s report. I note that you are a person of clear record. Robbery or attempt to commit robbery is serious. It becomes even more serious when a weapon such as a knife is used.

9.  However, I do accept the scenario should be differentiated from that of Mo Kwong Sang. In this case, this was an attempt. Although a weapon was displayed you showed not the slightest inclination to use it. Nothing was taken and your flight was caused by a simple question from the victim. As robberies or attempted robberies go, it does have elements of farce about it. Your arrest was almost inevitable, given your familiarity with the victim and rather ridiculous disguise. I note also that you were co-operative with the police from the very outset.

10.  I accept that you are remorseful but I also accept that this is a serious offence even if the attempted robbery was a rather comical sequence of events. You do not have the right to threaten people with knives and demand money. I note your offer of compensation. But that is not really part of this case; that is a civil matter. Whilst I suggest it would be the honourable thing to do to repay that $500, it will not be part of this court order.

11.  Given all the circumstances I have mentioned, the usual starting point of 5 years is, in my opinion, far too high. I therefore take as a starting point 3½ years or 42 months. You have pleaded guilty. You are therefore entitled to one-third discount. Therefore, that will be reduced to 2 years 4 months, or 28 months.