|
DCCC164/2010
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 164 OF 2010
----------------------
----------------------
|
Date:
|
18 March 2010 at 10.57 am
|
|
Present:
|
Mr Simon Tso, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Kwong Man-fai, of Messrs Sanny Kwong & Henry Lo, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant
|
---------------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------------
1. Yes, the simple side of the robbery, as your counsel appropriately put it, is quite serious, including a number of aggravating features. It was a breach-of-trust case. Violence was used. You held a weapon and the victim saw it. The victim suffered injury.
2. On the other hand, I have to look at the particular situation. I accepted that you may not have been treated too kindly by the old woman. Maybe you did not have any experience in looking after an old woman. They all have this characteristic behaviour of picking on someone. I fully appreciate that you were far away from home and you were working in a stranger’s house, home and you had not been treated kindly. I accepted that there. May be there was some element of revenge but, basically, you are greedy. Not only that you are greedy, you are foolish.
3. I accept what your counsel said that you wanted to stage a robbery to hide a simple offence of theft which you would otherwise have committed. It was a very foolish way of covering up your track. You wanted to gamble and you lost. You have to suffer the consequences. Although in simple terms, in definition term the aggravating features are serious, but individually they are not so serious of their own kind.
4. The breach of trust is classic. You were employed to look after the well-being of the woman. You just made use of the opportunity to take away her property. Apparently, your employer was a woman of strong character, agile and resilient, and she managed to kick you out of her bed. It shows that she was not too frightened. I do not know why. Maybe she recognised you even with your neckerchief on your face. At such close range, even if you had covered the whole face, you may be recognised by the person you had been close day after day for a long period.
5. But there are guidelines in this robbery. There is nothing much I can do. All the aggravating factors I would play down because they were not serious of its kind, and I believe that you had no intention to harm anyone before you staged your show. It is a case of a foolish plan went wrong, but just the same. 5 years is the best I can think of, the most lenient I can think of in terms of starting point.
6. But you are entitled to one-third remission whether or not you are genuinely remorseful or you just want to obtain your remission by pleading guilty. I have to give you one-third, no less than one-third even though your evidence against you is strong. Apart from your guilty plea, I do not see any other mitigating factors. Other mitigating factors I have already considered when I am deciding on a relatively low starting point in this sort of case.
7. So it is simple arithmetic. 5 years minus one-third remission: 40 months’ imprisonment.
| |
H.H. Judge Yung |
| |
District Judge |
|