CRIMINAL CASE NO. 238 OF 2012
The facts of the offences were as follows.
Charges 1 and 2
These offences occurred on 6 September 2011 at a commercial metal works site in Yuen Long. The victim, a 48-year-old female, was employed at the site as a night-time security guard. At about 3.30 am on the date of the charges, the defendant approached her while she was inside an open security booth. The defendant held a 2-foot-long iron rod. He told her to do as he said or she would die.
He then took her to a nearby secluded workshop. He tied her hands and legs with wire and then took certain items of her personal property from her, then returning to the booth to take her wallet and watch from her handbag which had been left there. He then went back to the workshop where the bound victim had remained and took her to a nearby container where he removed the victim’s upper garment and fondled her breast. The victim struggled but to no avail. The defendant then removed his trousers as well as those of the victim.
The victim attempted to discourage the defendant from going further by pretending she had an infectious disease and a weak heart. The defendant then demanded oral sex and forced his penis into the victim’s mouth. The victim became physically ill. The defendant attempted a few more times to put his penis into the victim’s mouth. The victim said she was dizzy and had a pain in her chest and, eventually, the defendant left.
The victim then reported the offence and was subsequently sent to Tuen Mun Hospital. She sustained some bruises and abrasions from the attack and required counselling.
Charges 3 and 4
On 8 November, about two months after the robbery and attack the subject of Charges 1 and 2, the defendant, this time armed with a 10-inch knife, went to a compound on government land in Shatin used to store abandoned and confiscated bicycles. The victim on this occasion was a 57-year-old woman who again worked there as a night guard.
At 1945 hours, the defendant approached the victim and produced the knife. He told her not to make a noise and tied her hands with a nylon cord. He then took her handbag from her. Following that, the defendant untied the victim and took her out of the compound by forcing her to crawl under the wire netting surrounding the yard. He then forced her to go with him up a hill next to the compound. The defendant was armed with the knife throughout that journey and carried with him the victim’s handbag.
When they eventually stopped on the hillside, the defendant removed the victim’s valuables from her handbag and then demanded sexual intercourse with the victim. She pretended she had a venereal disease and the defendant then forced the victim to perform oral sex on him. Following that, the defendant again demanded sexual intercourse but when the victim objected, the defendant did not press that demand. He then tied the victim up again and left.
After untying herself, the victim then went to a nearby petrol station and contacted the police. She also was taken to hospital but apart from some redness on her arms, suffered no other injuries.
The defendant was arrested by police on 19 December and in his flat were found some of the items taken at the 8 November robbery.
The events of the offences of 6 September and 8 November bore considerable similarities. On both occasions, women working as isolated nightshift security guards were attacked by the defendant and on each occasion, the defendant was armed. The victims were tied up, robbed, and then subjected to a degrading sexual assault. Both victims must have been badly traumatised by these events.
So far as the robbery offence the subject of the 1st charge is concerned, I take into account that the robbery occurred in business premises late at night, that a weapon was produced, that the victim was isolated, unarmed and effectively defenceless albeit a security guard, that she was tied up and subjected to a physical assault and that the defendant threatened her with an iron rod.
I take a starting point of sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment. The only mitigation available to the defendant is his plea of guilty and he gets full credit for that. The starting point of sentence is thereby reduced to a sentence of 4 years 8 months’ imprisonment.
So far as the offence the subject of the 2nd charge is concerned, I take into account the indecency was at the upper end of the scale so far as such offences are concerned and that it was committed in the circumstances which I have already referred to in respect of the 1st charged offence, of which particular aggravating factors are that the victim was under threat from an armed defendant and that she was tied up.
I take a starting point of sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment. As I have said, the only mitigation of substance available to the defendant is his plea of guilty and he is sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.
The robbery the subject of the 3rd charge, in my view, is, in any practical sense, indistinguishable in seriousness from that the subject of the first charged offence, and so far as sentence is concerned, possesses the same principal aggravating features, being the production of a weapon and the tying up of the victim in circumstances similar to that of the first charged offence.
I take a starting point of sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment. The only substantive mitigation is the defendant’s plea of guilty and that starting point is reduced to a sentence of 4 years 8 months’ imprisonment.
So far as the indecent assault the subject of the 4th charge is concerned, much of what I have said of the assault the subject of the 2nd charge is applicable also to this offence. The defendant attacked an isolated and vulnerable woman. He was armed with a knife on this occasion. The victim was tied up at various times and the defendant sexually assaulted her in a manner which could only be described as grossly indecent.
Again, I take a starting point of sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment. Taking the defendant’s plea of guilty into account, that starting point is reduced to a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment.
Given the overlapping of the facts and therefore of the aggravating features in respect of the offences committed on each of the two occasions, the question of totality of sentence must be addressed. I approach the appropriate totality of sentence as follows.
I order that the sentences imposed in respect of Charges 1 and 2 be served concurrently with one another, save for 2 years which I order to be served consecutively. That is, for those two offences, a total of 6 years 8 months’ imprisonment.
Similarly, with the sentences imposed in respect of Charges 3 and 4, I order them to be served concurrently with one another save for 2 years which I order to be served consecutively. That, for those offences, is a total again of 6 years 8 months’ imprisonment.
So far as the overall totality of sentence is concerned, I order that the totality of the sentences imposed in respect of Charges 3 and 4 be served as to 3 years consecutively to the totality of sentences imposed in respect of Charges 1 and 2 and that the balance be served concurrently. That is an overall totality of 9 years 8 months’ imprisonment.