So the modus operandi of the defendant was to arm himself with the 12-inch beef knife and point it at the hikers in order to get either cash or cash plus whatever valuable possessions they happened to have on them. These defenceless victims would then have to give up whatever they had because there was no help nearby.
In the 1st count, the total amount of valuables robbed amounted to some $10,500. In the 2nd count, the total valuables taken from the victims were about $8,500. In the 4th count, the total value of the valuables taken was in the region of $9,500. None of the valuables or cash have been recovered.
The 5th count of possession of offensive weapon was that on 27 February, the defendant was seen by police officers to be acting suspiciously near Kowloon Park in Tsim Sha Tsui. Upon seeing the uniformed police officers, the defendant ran away and these uniformed police officers were very quick and they managed to catch up with the defendant and arrested him. Upon a body search, a knife was found on the defendant’s person, together with a paper sheath.
These officers are to be commended on their quick thinking because I think if he had not been intercepted, perhaps another crime would have been committed in Kowloon Park that day.
The court has also heard that the defendant was in Hong Kong on a previous occasion in 2004 when he committed a similar offence of robbery, also on a hiker, for which he was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. He was, at the same time, also charged and convicted of one offence of remaining in Hong Kong after having landed unlawfully. That sentence had not deterred the defendant from coming back and committing the same offence again.
In mitigation, Mr Ng correctly pointed out that the only mitigation is really the fact that he had pleaded guilty and thus saved the court’s time and also saved the victims having to give evidence in court. I must also point out that in all these counts, the victims had positively identified the defendant at an identification parade.
There is no other reason for the defendant to commit these present offences, as Mr Ng pointed out, apart from the fact that he wanted to make quick money.
The usual tariff for a robbery with knives is 5 years’ starting point but I will increase the starting point to 6 years because of the aggravating factor of the multiplicity of offences. Therefore, on each count of robbery, the starting point would be 6 years’ imprisonment. That will be reduced by one-third because of the defendant’s plea.
As for the offensive weapon charge, I will adopt a starting point of 12 months reduced to 8 months because of his plea.
I do have to consider the totality principle. Having considered that, I will sentence the defendant in this way:
On Count 1, the defendant is sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.
On Count 2, the defendant is sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment, 1 year consecutive.
On the 4th count, similarly, he is sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment with 1 year consecutive to the sentences in Counts 1 and 2.
In the 5th count, the 8 months’ imprisonment, 4 months will be served consecutively to the sentences in Counts 1, 2 and 4.
Therefore, the sentence the defendant will face is a total of 6 years and 4 months.
As Mr Ng has pointed out, he will be sentenced if he pleads guilty to the unlawful remaining charge in the Magistrates Court. The sentence will be served consecutive to the present one. I have taken that into account in coming to the present sentences.