HKSAR v. TANG AH KWAN

DCCC 872/2024

[2025] HKDC 1798

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 872 OF 2024

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Attempted robbery". He tried to rob a taxi driver $500 in the early hours by pointing a bunch of keys at the driver's neck.

Summary of Facts

2.  About 4:25 a.m. on 4 April 2024, Mr. Cheung (PW1) was driving a taxi (VL6199; "the Taxi") along Castle Peak Road in Tuen Mun.  The defendant boarded the Taxi at the Fuk Hang Tsuen Archway and requested to go to Fu Hang Road.  He sat on the rear left seat.

3.  Upon reaching the destination, PW1 turned around and asked for $23.5 as taxi fare.  The defendant suddenly took out a key ring with keys attached to it.  He pointed the keys at PW1's neck and demanded $500.  PW1 put up a struggle.  The defendant punched PW1's head 4 times but failed to get any money from PW1.  He then fled.  The Police was alerted.  PW1 had an abrasion on his right forehead.

4.  Upon reviewing the relevant CCTV and dash cam footage, the Police traced the defendant to Kwan Tai House, Fu Tai Estate.  In the same evening, DPC 24088 intercepted the defendant at Fu Tai Estate.  Under caution, he said he was drunk and hence had a dispute with PW1.

5.  In his video recorded interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that he was residing at Kwan Tai House with his family.  About 4:27 a.m. on 4 April 2024, he boarded a taxi near the entrance of Fuk Hang Tsuen.  He forgot where he alighted from the taxi.  He identified what he was wearing in that evening.  When being shown the dash cam footage of the Taxi, he said the male looked like him.

6.  Dash cam footage of the Taxi captured the defendant boarding the Taxi at 4:27 a.m. on 4 April 2024 and alighting at 4:34.  Voice recording of the journey revealed the defendant asking PW1 to go to Fu Hang Road.  Upon arrival, PW1 asked for taxi fare.  The defendant said he had lost his wallet and PW1 suggested driving him to a police station to report his loss.  The defendant then demanded $500 from PW1.  When PW1 refused, he demanded $200 and shouted at PW1 in profanity.

Mitigation & Sentence

7.  The defendant recently turned 45 and has a clear record.  Defence counsel Mr. Ma informed me that the defendant is married.  He resides with his parents and 2 younger brothers.  His wife resides in the mainland.  The defendant was a construction worker earning $35,000 per month and contributed $20,000 to his parents and wife.

8.  In mitigation, Mr. Ma explained that on 3 April 2024, the defendant had dinner with his colleagues until about 4:00 in the morning.  He had consumed a considerable amount of beer and red wine during dinner.  Mr. Ma submitted that the defendant knew what he was doing, but was more "hyper" than what he would have been when sober.  When he discovered having lost his wallet, he foolishly and impulsively asked PW1 for money.  Mr. Ma stressed that the defendant was not in need of money.  What he did was completely out of his character.  He is truly remorseful and will stay away from alcohol in the future.

9.  In The Queen v Tran Van Anh [1993] 2 HKCLR 122, the Court of Appeal held "Taxi drivers, as we have frequently observed, are particularly vulnerable to robbery, especially those who ply for hire late at night or in the early hours of the morning or who pick up or drop passengers in quiet locations." [1]

10.  A clear message must be conveyed to the general public that taxi robbery is a serious offence and that the offenders would most certainly be punished by long-term imprisonment[2]. 

11.  In the present case, the defendant acted alone and claimed to be drunk.  He pointed a bunch of keys at PW1's neck and eventually punched PW1's head 4 times.  PW1 did not lose any cash and only had an abrasion on his forehead.  I accept what the defendant did was out of his character.  What I cannot ignore is this is a taxi robbery which took place in the early hours.

12.  Having considered all relevant factors, I consider a starting point of 4.5 years' imprisonment appropriate and just. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 36 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 36 months' imprisonment.