CRIMINAL CASE NO. 127 OF 2012
COURT: D1 pleaded guilty to six counts, D2 to one count and D3 to four counts of robbery. Apart from the 1st count, which was committed by D1 alone, he committed one other count with D2 and four counts with D3.
The victims were all 7-Eleven Convenience Stores. The stolen properties ranged from slightly less than HK$2,000 to HK$6,800 cash and a few to 50 packets of cigarettes. All were committed at the early hours. Face masks and caps were worn and knives were used in the course of the robberies.
D1 is now aged 20, D2 19, and D3 also 20. All are of clear record. I am told that D1 is a first-year interior design student, D2 a stock-keeper and D3 is a SPACE Community College student and had it not been for the present offence, he would have graduated this year.
By way of mitigation for D1, I am told that he committed the present offence out of financial predicament. He is prepared to pay full restitution. I am also told that he fully admitted the other five offences after his arrest for the 1st charge, and it is because of his assistance that led to other co-accused being arrested. It is also claimed that he had an eating disorder and he might be labouring under psychological problems during commission of the offences.
For D2 and D3, it is urged on their behalf that both of them got to know D1 and, after their acquaintance, each of them was tempted to commit robbery because of shortage of money and each of them succumbed to such temptation.
In sentencing the three defendants, I have taken into account the facts of the case, the nature of the offences, contents of the mitigation letters, mitigation forwarded by counsel on their behalves, their guilty pleas. I have also taken into account other mitigation factors such as the defendant’s offer to pay restitution.
According to the case of Mo Kwong Sang, an armed robbery with knives normally attracts a basic starting point of 6 years. The present case involved invasion of business premises at early hours in the morning with more than one person involved in five out of the six counts.
First about D2 who committed Charge 6 jointly with D1, that is, he only faced one charge. I adopt a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment. He is entitled to the full one-third discount for his plea and he is sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.
Now I turn to D1 who was involved in five robberies jointly with others and one on his own. I consider an overall starting point of 9 years appropriate. He is given the full one-third discount for his guilty plea. He is sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment on each charge to run concurrently.
For D3 who was involved in four charges with D1 jointly, I adopt an overall starting point of 8 years. He is also entitled to the one-third discount and he is sentenced to 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. For the sentence of D3, it is all concurrent.