HKSAR v. DAR ASIM TAHIR AND ANOTHER

DCCC 1196/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1196 OF 2012

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1. The defendants stand convicted after trial of one charge of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210.

2. In summary Mr Ho Fok Meng operated a stall selling pork in the Tai Yuen Estate Market in Tai Po.  After work Mr Ho would secure the day’s takings in his money bag and then ride his bicycle home.  In the evenings of the 22 or 23 and the 26 October 2012 Mr Ho saw three South Asian males paying attention to him as he was leaving on his bicycle to go home. 

3. The next day Mr Ho finished work around 7.45 p.m.  As usual Mr Ho placed the day’s takings, including $70,000 cash, in his money bag and went to collect his bicycle to ride home.  After securing his money bag Mr Ho got on his bicycle to leave. 

4. At this moment Mr Ho saw three South Asian males heading towards him from the opposite side of On Cheung Road.  They started to shower Mr Ho with punches to the face, which Mr Ho tried to ward off.  Mr Ho fell off his bicycle at which point two of the males then kicked Mr Ho whilst the third male took away his money bag.  Mr Ho saw the robber who snatched the money bag flee towards Tai Yuen Street on the right whilst the other two ran towards On Cheung Road on the left.

5. Mr Ho chased after the one who snatched the money bag but was unable to catch him and therefore reported the matter to the police by dialling 999.  Mr Ho then returned to collect his bicycle and went in search of the other two robbers.  In the meantime the defendants were seen by police officers running away from near the scene of the robbery.  After a chase the police intercepted the defendants and took them on board a police van. 

6. Whilst riding his bicycle Mr Ho noticed the police van and approached to tell them about the robbery.  Mr Ho saw two of the robbers sitting inside the police van and immediately told the police officer guarding the police van that they had robbed him.  Mr Ho recognised the two defendants as part of the group of three South Asian males who had the day before and earlier in the week been watching him when he was leaving on his bicycle to go home after work.

7. 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, for example see R v Yau Kwok Tung [1987] HKLR 782 as applied in HKSAR v Ting Chiu[2003] 3 HKLRD 378.  There are however cases where sentences higher than 4 years imprisonment have been upheld for unarmed robberies.  In HKSAR v Chow Chi Sin CACC 400/2005 a sentence of 4 years and 3 months imprisonment was upheld for robbery shortly after midnight when two men pushed a lady to the ground and punched her on the head several times resulting in injuries to the head and forearm. 

8. In passing sentence I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendants by Mr Hotten.  I take into account that D1 has a clear record and D2 has no convictions for dishonesty or violence.  

9. Taking into account three robbers punched and kicked Mr Ho resulting in injuries to his face, right elbow and right thigh and a substantial sum of money was taken which has not been recovered, I am satisfied the proper sentence after trial is 4 years and 3 months imprisonment. 

10. The defendants are both sentenced to 4 years and 3 months imprisonment.