Now, the facts in the case disclosed that in relation to the 1st charge on 4 February 2020, at about 6 pm, he had gone to a place, a shop in the Wah Hing Industrial Mansions in Wong Tai Sin and he was wearing sunglasses, a black mask and a black short hair wig. He approached the victim who was managing the shop at the cashier counter. Then the defendant took out a pistol-like object from his jacket and pointed it at the right temple of the victim’s head and declared robbery and he then demanded money. And so she then opened the drawer and the defendant then took away cash of $900. The defendant then took out two plastic cable ties and tied her wrist and ankle and further ransacked the counter, found the victim’s handbag and took $1,800 cash from her wallet. The defendant then fled.
PW1, the victim, shouted for help and a passer-by then answered her call for help and helped untie her, she suffered no physical injury and the case was reported to the police.
Now, with the assistance of CCTV in the location of the robbery, it showed the defendant boarding a taxi and the driver was subsequently identified and he then told the police that the defendant alighted at Kwai Chung Plaza in Kwai Fong Road.
Police investigation very efficiently then managed to get hold of the CCTV footage in Kwai Chung Plaza and saw that the defendant went to a foreign -- an exchange shop in Kwai Chung Plaza and investigation revealed that on that same day of the robbery, he had remitted $2,795 to a bank account in Shenzhen.
Now, the 2nd charge took place on 7 February 2020 in the afternoon shortly after 2.30 pm and this was in a shoe shop in Kwai Chung Plaza. The shop owner was in the shop and alone. The defendant dressed as before with a black short hair wig and a black mask, entered the shop and pointed a black pistol-like object at the victim’s forehead. He then pushed the victim into the storeroom and eventually the victim surrendered the keys to the cashier counter. Then the defendant took out two plastic cable ties from his rucksack and tied the victim’s wrist and ankles and covered her mouth with adhesive tape. He then left the storeroom. The victim untied herself and came out from the storeroom. The defendant fled and she suffered no physical injury and the case was reported to the police.
The victim checked and found that amongst other things she had lost was cash, renminbi 18,000 and HK$5,000, her wallet, her Hong Kong ID card, her travel permit for Hong Kong and Macau residence, three bank cards and two bank books.
CCTV footage at Kwai Chung Plaza showed the defendant left the plaza and boarded a taxi and the taxi driver was located and said he dropped the defendant off outside Luen Yat House in Kwai Luen Estate and further investigation by the police reveal that the defendant was seen entering the lobby of the Luen Yuet House on the same day at about 1500 hours.
So the police officers very efficiently conducted an ambush operation and on 8 February, the defendant was seen leaving the place of his residence with a black rubbish bag which he then dumped into a refuse collection point. The police then recovered that rubbish bag from the rubbish bin and the defendant was arrested and he remained silent under caution. The rubbish bag was opened in front of the defendant and a pistol-like airgun was found inside and amongst other things were two packets of plastic cable ties and seven cable ties and a wig of short black hair and the defendant’s DNA was found on the seven plastic cable ties that were found inside the rubbish bag.
So these are the facts and it is frightening, as Mr Arthur very properly conceded, for the victims. They were alone in the shop, their head was pointed with a pistol-like object, they were tied up and although no physical injuries were found, however, the psychological, emotional injury is difficult to ascertain. That is why the court has always frowned upon offences of this nature especially targeting people going about their usual business and facing this kind of terror and in the case of Secretary for Justice v Lee Chun Ho, Jeef, which was kindly submitted by the prosecution reported at [[2009] 6 HKC 471], the Court of Appeal in fact said that robbery with even an imitation firearm would merit a starting point sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.
This is because we have to take into account the fact that the sentence should have a deterrent effect for this kind of offences because victims faced with a pistol-like object pointed at them would not be able to tell if it was an imitation firearm or an airgun which looks like a firearm and so the fear generated is quite a serious one.
And it is easy to rob females in a shop alone, their doors being opened to patrons of all kinds and there was a bit of planning because the defendant took with him the cable ties. He also armed himself with a short black wig to try and mask his identity. And also he went and sent money after the first robbery to a bank account in Shenzhen. So all of this required a bit of planning but granted he committed the offence by himself.
Mr Arthur has said everything he could possibly say on behalf of the defendant. There is no doubt that the defendant was under financial pressure and I am informed by Mr Arthur that the defendant in fact was under such straitened financial circumstances that he had to even pawn his wedding ring. That may be, but it does not mitigate what he did to the victims.
The letters from the defendant set outs the pressure that he was under. He has two children but his daughter unfortunately was born with some disabilities and so I can quite understand the pressure the defendant was feeling. However, many people have that kind of pressure in our society and if everybody goes out and does what the defendant did, then this would be completely a breakdown of law and order.
So taking into account everything, I consider that a proper sentence for each offence of robbery would be a 10-year starting point. On the 1st charge, I would impose 10 years’ imprisonment reduced to 6 years and 8 months because of his plea and his full remorse and so I am giving him the full one-third discount. In relation to the 2nd charge, again a 10-year starting point which will be reduced to 6 years and 8 months because of his plea.
Now, in considering the totality principle, I agree with Mr Arthur that part of the sentence in the 2nd charge should be made concurrent to the 1st charge. So having considered all the facts and the circumstances including the mitigation, I would therefore make 2 years of the 6 years and 8 months sentence in the 2nd charge be consecutive to the 6 years and 8 months in the 1st charge and so the defendant will go to prison for a total of 8 years and 8 months.