HKSAR v. TALAT ARSLAN AND ANOTHER

DCCC 864/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 864 OF 2015

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendants have each pleaded guilty to a joint charge of attempted robbery.

2.  They have admitted the facts put forward by the prosecution.  Those facts show that the offence occurred in the early evening of 17 August 2015.  The victim, who was PW1, was walking along a road in Tai Po.  It was still daylight, and he had a rucksack on his back which contained an iPad which was valued at $6,000, a notebook computer valued at $2,500, and cash in Renminbi of $2,200.

3.  He felt someone grab his rucksack from behind and try and pull it off him.  He held onto the rucksack tightly, and as a result, lost his balance and fell to the ground.  He noticed there were a total of three persons involved in robbing him, which included the 1st and 2nd defendants, and the three men continued to try to snatch the rucksack as he fell to the ground.

4.  He managed to raise the alarm, and they were chased by a person who observed them.  They were intercepted nearby the scene and eventually arrested by police.

5.  The antecedents of both defendants have been admitted.

6.  The 1st defendant is aged 26.  He was born in Pakistan and is here in Hong Kong as an asylum seeker.  He completed secondary education in Pakistan.  He has one previous conviction in Hong Kong which is an offence in 2012 of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, when he was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.

7.  The 2nd defendant is aged 31.  He also was born in Pakistan and achieved secondary education in Pakistan, and also, I understand, is an asylum seeker in Hong Kong.  As far as his previous court record is concerned, he has two convictions dated 30 June 2010.  He took employment without authority and also he was involved in obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception, and was sentenced to a total of 15 months’ imprisonment.

8.  As far as mitigation is concerned, there is common mitigation to both defendants.  It is that this, although it is an attempted robbery, is an unarmed robbery, it was committed in a public place and in daylight, the victim suffered minor injuries from abrasions from the fall, and both defendants have pleaded guilty today.

9.  There is also a combined aggravating factor, which is they took part in a concerted robbery involving three men.

10.  Both defendants say this is not the most serious form of unarmed robbery, and it is really a snatching that involved some injury to the victim.

11.  As far as individual facts are concerned, the 2nd defendant says that he joined the attempt to rob at a very late stage, and again, both defendants say this is an opportunistic crime.  They had not gone there to commit a robbery.

12.  It is clear that this is what can be described as an unarmed robbery, and it has been said that the upper limit for the most serious forms of unarmed robbery is a starting point for sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment.  The robbery involved the use of a degree of force to pull and snatch the bag away, and a group of men were involved.

13.  Again, this attempt would not fall into, again, the most serious category of unarmed robbery, but it does have its aggravating factors.

14.  I consider, taking all the factors into account, the starting point for sentence in relation to each of the defendants for this joint attempted robbery should be one of 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, or 39 months’ imprisonment.

15.  They are both entitled to a one-third discount from that sentence, which leads to a final sentence of 26 months’ imprisonment for each defendant on this charge.