HKSAR v. SINGH SATNAM RANDHAWA AND ANOTHER

DCCC 404/2017

[2018] HKDC 442

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 404 OF 2017

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1.  D1 stands convicted after trial of one joint charge of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance[1]. D2 pleaded guilty to the charge on the first day of trial.

2.  Full particulars of the offence are set out in my verdict delivered on 4 April 2018 and in the facts admitted by D2 on 19 March 2018.

3.  In summary in the early hours of 1 March 2017 Ms Hui Yin Fei was walking home alone when she was followed by the defendants.  When Ms Hui nearly reached home D2 suddenly grabbed her neck from behind and declared robbery while D1 acted as a lookout. 

4.  D2 told Ms Hui to drop her phone on the ground and take out all her money.  Ms Hui was very frightened and dropped her phone on the ground.  When Ms Hui took out some money from her wallet D2 took the money.  D2 then let go of Ms Hui’s neck, picked up the phone and left together with D1.  

5.  With the help of a passer-by Ms Hui reported the case to the police.  The police arrived soon after and took Ms Hui on a police vehicle to look for the robbers.  Ms Hui identified the two robbers, D1 and D2, who were outside Yuet Kwai House. 

6.  PC 18851 arrested D1. Under caution and in a video recorded interview D1 admitted acting as a lookout.  Under caution D2 admitted taking part in the robbery and that the phone was placed inside the letter box of his home at Yuet Kwai House.

7.  A search of D2 revealed the key to the letter box from where the police recovered Ms Hui’s mobile phone.  The police also recovered the money from D2’s wallet. In a video recorded interview D2 admitted that together with D1 they followed Ms Hui for four minutes before robbing Ms Hui.   

Mitigation

D1

8.  In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of D1 by Mr Davies, including his young age; his clear record; his role was that of a lookout and that he acted under the influence of alcohol.

D2

9.  In passing sentence, I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of D2 by Mr Lai, including that he has a three year old son who is looked after by his ex-girlfriend; his parents are both suffering from ill-health; he was unemployed at the time of the offence and also acted under the influence of alcohol[2].

10.  I have read the letters written by D2 expressing his remorse and his wish to be released from prison soon so he can take care of his son and parents. 

Starting point

11.  No knife or weapon having been used the proper basis for sentence is that which is appropriate for an unarmed robbery.  The starting point for unarmed robbery is generally no more than 4 years’ imprisonment, see for example R v Yau Kwok Tung[3] as applied in HKSAR v Ting Chiu[4].

12.  In submitting that a starting point of 3 years and 6 months or less is appropriate Mr Lai refers the court to a number of sentences imposed in the District Court[5].  I have considered the reasons for sentence in the cases submitted by Mr Lai.

13.  In HKSAR v Thapa Min Bahadur[6], a case referred by the court to Mr Lai, the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of four years after trial for a sustained struggle to force the victim to let go of her bag. 

14.  Although D2 was not masked like the robber in Thapa Min Bahadur he was acting together with D1 and grabbed hold of Ms Hui’s neck until she dropped her phone and handed over some money.  This too was a sustained use of force. 

15.  Taking into account the circumstances of the robbery on a single woman in the early hours of the morning; the sustained use of force which caused Ms Hui to be very frightened resulting in her dropping her phone and handing over her money; that there were two robbers with D1 acting as the lookout, and that fortunately Ms Hui suffered no injuries, I am satisfied the proper starting point after trial is 4 years’ imprisonment. 

Sentence

D1

16.  D1 is a young offender, 16 at the time of the offence and now 17. Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance[7], provides no court shall sentence a person of or over 16 and under 21 years of age to imprisonment unless the court is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with such person is appropriate.  Whilst this provision does not apply to robbery, which is an excepted offence, a court must exercise great care before committing a young offender to prison.

17.  I therefore called for a Training Centre suitability report before passing sentence to provide the court with further information about D1.  In view of the young age of D1, Mr Davies asked that I also consider calling for a probation report and a report as to D1’s suitability for detention in a Rehabilitation Centre. Notwithstanding the young age, clear record and role played by D1, I am satisfied the imposition of either probation or detention in a Rehabilitation Centre would not reflect the seriousness of the offence committed by D1.

18.  The report from the Assessment Officer at Pik Uk details ineffective parental supervision, in particular after D1’s father separated from the family in 2010.  D1 showed no interest in school studies and recorded the poorest grades in Primary Six and in Form One.  In late 2015 D1 left school without completing Form One.  In the meantime, D1 began to associate with members of triad societies.  After leaving school D1 remained idle during which time he met D2.

19.  After his arrest D1 was initially remanded in custody.  D1 did not behave well on remand and was placed on disciplinary report for using foul language.  After being released on bail D1 resumed his association with triad members and regarded a male nicknamed “Ah Kit” as his big brother in the Wo Shing Wo triad society.  Mr Davies tells the court that after he was arrested D1 says he stopped his association with triad members. 

20.  Notwithstanding the report is generally very poor all hope is not lost.  On pre-sentence remand D1 has not breached any offence against discipline and was visited regularly by his parents.  Most important is that both parents show much concern about their son. 

21.  The father who had neglected his son after separating from the family has paid more attention to his son since he was arrested.  This was shown during the trial when the father, who was the surety, explained to court he travelled every morning from Hong Kong Island to Yuen Long to collect his son to ensure his son attended court.

22.  D1 is confirmed mentally and physically fit for detention in a Training Centre.  In order to help D1 develop more insight into his problems and cultivate his positive moral value as well as strengthen his law-abiding concept, the Assessment Officer is of the opinion a period of disciplinary training with statutory supervision might be beneficial to D1. 

23.  Training Centre has been imposed in robbery cases involving young offenders, for example in HKSAR v Wong Tsz Hin[8] where the applicant a 16 year old boy acted under the influence of an older man.  Mr Davies has also referred the court to numerous authorities where a Training Centre order has been imposed for robbery[9].

24.  Notwithstanding D1 did not plead guilty, Mr Davies tells the court D1 now accepts he was the lookout and is remorseful.  Taking into account D1 has a clear record and is only 17, 16 at the time of the offence and having carefully considered D1’s character and conduct and the circumstances of the offence including D1’s role as a lookout; that D1 acted under the influence of an elder man (D2 aged 29); D1’s family support and that initially after his arrest D1 spent over five months in custody before being granted bail, I am satisfied that it would be in the interest of D1 and that of the community that D1 undergoes a period of training in a Training Centre[10].

25.  D1 is sentenced to detention in a Training Centre.

D2

26.  Although D2 cannot be given credit for a clear record, I take into account that apart from two offences committed in 2004 when he was 16, D2 has no convictions for offences of dishonesty.  D2 does however have convictions for violence in 2007; 2010; 2011 and 2013 when he was sentenced to detention in a Rehabilitation Centre and to short terms of imprisonment.  Taking into account that the last conviction was in October 2013, over three years prior to the present offence, I do not enhance the starting point by reason of D2’s criminal record. 

27.  D2 having indicated his plea of guilty in plea court he is entitled to the full one third discount for pleading guilty.  Giving D2 full credit for his plea of guilty he is convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.