CRIMINAL CASE NO. 91 OF 2010
The Hong Kong Wine Vault, which I will refer to as “HKWV”, occupies three storeys of an industrial building in Aberdeen. It provides facilities for customers to store valuable bottles of wine.
The premises are highly secure, and staff and customers gain entry through locked doors by way of digital passes and computerised facial recognition.
On 12 December 2009, the three defendants went to the premises dressed as delivery workers. The 2nd defendant went to the outer main entrance of the premises and claimed to be delivering a wooden box containing bottles of wine which he was carrying. A cleaning lady, who was apparently the only HKWV employee in the vicinity, opened the locked door, and the 2nd defendant, together with the 1st and 3rd defendants, who had been hiding in a nearby staircase, dashed inside.
They had brought with them a luggage bag which contained various implements, including meat knives. A meat knife was held to the employee’s neck and she was told to keep quiet. She sustained a small, 1-centimetre cut to her chin. She was bound and gagged with adhesive tape and taken to another room.
The gang then waited for the appearance of a presumably more senior staff member. One came on the scene. He was grabbed by the defendants and was told to open the locked inner door. He did so, at knifepoint, and D1, D2 and D3 gained entrance to the wine storerooms area. This staff member was then also bound and gagged.
The gang then used bolt cutters which they had brought with them to open specific padlocked storerooms.
At about this time, the general manager of HKWV noticed the robbery on his CCTV system. He called the police, who arrived very quickly on the scene. Two officers were the first to arrive, and upon seeing the defendants carrying knives, drew their revolvers and shouted to D1 and D2 to halt.
D1 and D2 did so, and lay down their weapons, and were arrested. The 3rd defendant then arrived on the arrest scene, and he was also stopped and arrested by one of the two officers.
The defendants were searched. D1 was found to be carrying a hammer in his trouser pocket. Inside the luggage bag brought onto the premises by the defendants were other items, no doubt to be used for the purposes of the robbery, including a crowbar and walkie-talkie sets.
Each defendant later admitted his role under caution. Common to their statements to the police, they said they had been recruited in the mainland by a person, “Ah Yau”, who had suggested the robbery to them and supplied them with the equipment and items used for the purposes of the robbery. They were to receive about $300 per box of wine stolen.
Each admitted that in November they had come to Hong Kong to reconnoitre the premises of HKWV for the purposes of the robbery, although the 1st defendant said he had not gone to the premises.
Police investigation revealed that three persons had gained entry to the premises in the early hours of 27 November 2009 and again on 28 November by one masquerading as an executive of a company called Fine Wine Industry, and the other two as workmen accompanying him. They gained entry using a keycard apparently issued by another wine company located within the same building, albeit issued to another person who, when spoken to by police in the course of the investigation, said he had no knowledge of the keycard.
Each defendant had come to Hong Kong from the mainland on two‑way permits both at the time of the reconnaissance of the premises of HKWV and of the attempted robbery.
It is quite obvious from the operations of the gang and the role played by each defendant that all three are of equal culpability.
This was a sophisticated and well-planned operation, plainly involving more individuals in its planning and conduct than these three defendants. Weapons were produced in the form of meat knives, and though I accept the small cut to the chin of the cleaning lady was accidental, the attempt to rob involved the binding and gagging of two individuals in circumstances which must have been very frightening for them.
In my view, the factors aggravating the offence were the fact it was a robbery in company; the production of meat knives; the threatening of and binding and gagging of the two employees of HKWV; and the sophisticated planning and organisation which had gone into the attempt to rob these private business premises.
I take a starting point of sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment for each defendant. I do not think that the offence being one of attempted robbery should mean a lesser starting point should be adopted. This attempt was well advanced prior to the arrival of the police, and it was only at gunpoint that the defendants abandoned their enterprise, and that was well after the two employees of HKWV had been threatened and bound and gagged at knifepoint.
The only mitigation of substance advanced on the part of each defendant is his plea of guilty. Each defendant receives full credit for that plea, and each is sentenced to 5 years 4 months’ imprisonment.