HKSAR v. NAWAZ TAHIR

DCCC 1350/2024

[2025] HKDC 1298

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1350 OF 2024

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  On the 1st day of July 2024, the defendant boarded a taxi and directed the taxi driver to go to Sheung Shui. On the way, the defendant tried to grab the taxi driver’s rucksack which was placed on the front passenger seat. The taxi driver held on to the rucksack and a struggle ensued. The defendant further squeezed the taxi driver’s head with his right hand while hitting on his head with his left hand for about three times. There happened to be a police vehicle nearby; the taxi driver managed to drive towards the police vehicle and eventually the defendant was arrested. As it turned out, shortly before boarding the taxi, the defendant had approached the taxi twice in order to see whether he had any valuables on board.

2.  From the above facts, the defendant faced a count of “Attempted Robbery”.  He is convicted upon his plea and admission of facts.  Although the defendant did not succeed in robbing the taxi driver, the attempt charge carries the same penalty as does the offence itself.  In this case, the taxi driver had been subject to physical violence by the defendant in his attempt to take away the latter’s property.

3.  Taxi drivers operate alone and are particularly vulnerable to robberies.  During the mitigations, it was fairly stated that the Court of Appeal had in the past approved that in cases where there are no aggravating factors with minimal violence used, a sentence of 5 to 6 years would not be interfered with.  In the present case, the defendant had punched the taxi driver a few times.  In the circumstances, I believe it is fair to adopt the sentencing order of 5 years.

4.  The defendant is age 26, single, a Hong Kong permanent resident and lives alone in Hong Kong.  Despite his young age, he has already been taken to court and been convicted on four occasions, two of which are related to crimes of dishonesty and two of which dangerous drugs.

5.  On 28th day of June 2024, for a count of possession of dangerous drugs, he was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 3 years.  The commission of the present offence means that he is in breach of that suspended sentence. The defence counsel fairly stated that he had no submission on this point.  Although the crime related to the suspended sentence is of a nature different from the present one, as a matter of principle I do not see any justification of not activating it.

6.  This court does appreciate that as a minority living in Hong Kong, he might suffer from a lot of disadvantages. However, this is not a reason to commit crime.

7.  The only mitigating factor is the fact that he has pleaded guilty.  So I will reduce the 5 years sentence to 40 months. I will activate the 10 months suspended sentence to run consecutively.

In all, the defendant sentenced to a ten of imprisonment for 50 months.