HKSAR v. DO ANH-TUAN

DCCC212/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 212 OF 2009

 ----------------------

----------------------

Reasons for Sentence

1.  The defendant has been convicted on his plea of one charge of attempted robbery and one charge of unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong, both committed on 15 January this year.

2.  He boarded a taxi at about 10 pm on the night in question, gestured for the driver to go forward and then after about 50 metres he moved to the centre of the back seat, demanded money and displayed a knife with a blade of 3 to 4 inches in length.  The driver fended off the knife, and they started struggling with each other.  The driver then stopped at a traffic light whereupon the defendant fled the taxi, empty-handed.  The driver drove around the area looking for the defendant, spotted him and reported it to the police who attended and located the defendant in a nearby car park, where they subdued him, and recovered a folding knife from the car park.

3.  Under caution the defendant admitted that he committed this offence because he had run out of money and needed money in order to return to Vietnam.  He also admitted that he had sneaked into Hong Kong from Shenzhen by hiding under a truck.  He had been unable to find a job, had not eaten for a few days and therefore he decided to rob a taxi driver.  He admitted that he had entered Hong Kong illegally with a view to obtaining money so that he could return to Vietnam.  He also admitted that he had brought the knife with him from the mainland. 

4.  Robbery is of course an inherently serious offence and the courts take a particularly serious view of taxi robberies for the simple reason that taxi drivers are particularly vulnerable to this crime, particularly in hours of darkness.  It is for that reason that the starting point adopted in a simple taxi robbery, such as the present one, is higher than the starting point adopted for a simple robbery which involves displaying a knife, which does not involve a taxi. 

5.  The authorities indicate that a starting point of at least 6 years’ imprisonment, should normally be adopted for a taxi robbery which involved the displaying of a weapon like a knife.  I can see no reason on the facts of the present case for departing from that guideline, notwithstanding that I accept that the defendant in this case did not employ any actual violence at all.

6.  I adopt a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment after trial and for the defendant’s co-operation and his plea of guilty and his co-operation with the authorities, he is entitled to the full one-third discount which reduces the starting point to 48 months’ imprisonment.  I can see no reason on the facts of this case for further discounting this sentence.  I note that the defendant has a clear record which is to his credit, but that is already taken into account in the one-third discount which I have already afforded him.  In the result I sentence the defendant to 4 years’ imprisonment on the 1st charge.

7.  On the 2nd charge of unlawfully remaining in Hong Kong, I sentence him to 15 months' imprisonment and order that to run concurrently with the sentence on the 1st charge.  So the total sentence on the two charges is 4 year's imprisonment.