HKSAR v. LO TSZ YEUNG

DCCC 318/2021

[2021] HKDC 1418

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 318 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to a single charge of robbery and agreed to the summary of facts.

The facts

2.  On 14 December 2020, at about 2315 hours, PW1 (Ms Chiu)  was outside the corridor of her flat on the 8^th floor of I-Feng Mansion and about to open the door, at this juncture, she saw a man with a white T-shirt wrapped over his head (the defendant)  dashing towards her and landed a punch on her left face near the forehead, she fell to the ground, the defendant then snatched PW1’s handbag from her and ran away.

3.  PW1 shouted for help, and another resident of the same building (PW2, Mr Chen)  heard her shouting for help and ran to the backstairs of the building, he saw the defendant and the chase began, they both ran downstairs and out of the building, PW2 successfully subdued the defendant outside 60-68 To Kwa Wan Road after a struggle.  Report was made by a passerby and police arrived and arrested the defendant

4.  Police later recovered a white T-shirt and a handbag form the backstairs of I-Feng Building and confirmed these were dropped by the defendant during the chase.

5.  At the material time, the handbag (valued at HK$13,000)  contained, amongst other things, the following items:-

(i)  One purse (valued at HK$4,500);

(ii)  Cash of HK$1,500;

(iii)  Cash of RMB500;

(iv)  One HKID card (belonging to PW1); and

(v)  One pack of dried fish maw (valued at HK$600).

The total value of all the items was around HK$20,200. They were recovered and returned to PW1.

Mitigation and sentence

6.  The defendant is now 28 years old and single, he was born in Hong Kong.  He is educated up to Secondary 5.  Before his arrest, he used to work as an office clerk earning about HK$15,000 monthly, due to the pandemic, the company had closed down and he had to find another job but with a much lower pay of HK$6,000 working as a delivery worker and funeral home casual worker.

7.  I have read all mitigation letters submitted to this court, and I don't intent to repeat them here.

8.  It is admitted, the defendant has all together 12 criminal records, 2 of them involved dishonesty.

9.  Counsel has stressed that, the defendant acted alone, no weapon was used, the attack was not repeated and involved just one punch, no permanent injury suffered and all properties were recovered.

10.  In determine the proper starting point, I bear in mind the above factors, besides, counsel has submitted various authorities for the court’s consideration.

11.  In HKSAR v Lam Ka Hung CACC 294/2003, a female victim, aged 57 was making her way back to her flat at a residential building, she got her handbag snatched and her shoulder had been pressed down during the struggle and sustained minor abrasion to a finger.  The appellant had 11 convictions but none related to robbery or violence.  The Judge took 5 years as the starting point and after 1/3 discount, the appellant was sentenced to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. On appeal it was reduced to 4 years and after 1/3 discount, a sentence of 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment was substituted.

12.  In HKSAR v Ku Kwok Wai [2012] 4 HKLRD 563, the 2 defendants followed a 17 years old female student as she returned home at 5 am, D2 acted as lookout at the entrance of the building, D1 entered the lobby and pushed the victims back while she was waiting for the lift and talking on her iPhone, D1 snatched the iPhone and fled.  The both had a clear record.  The Judge took 39 months as the starting point.  On appeal, the court of appeal confirmed the sentence.

13.  It is to be noted that, the court of appeal had commented that the sentencing Judge observed the circumstances of the commission of the offence was to be view as a step up from theft to snatching.

14.  In the present case, it shares a very similar factual background to Lam’s case, snatching handbag while the victim was on the way home, no weapon was used and fortunately, the victim suffered minor injury.

15.  Having considered all matters put forward in mitigation, and in particular, Lam’s case, however as stressed by counsel, his records mainly were driving offences, and going through his records in details, one drug offence, one relates to dutiable goods, 2 cases of violence and 1 of theft, the rest are driving related offences, I am of the view that a starting point of 3 years and 6 months is appropriate and giving him 1/3 discount, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.