The particulars of the offence was that on the 22nd day of December 2019, they together with person unknown had robbed a shop called “28 Watches” in Causeway Bay Plaza of 12 watches. The facts show that at about 12 noon on 22 December 2019, the watches were placed in the display window of the shop for business. And at about shortly before 7 pm, PW1 left the shop to go to the washroom, leaving PW2 in the shop. Subsequently, both of them heard a loud sound and they also noted that the shop window had been smashed, and the 1st defendant and a wanted person, another male, was fleeing towards the garbage room. A third male, that is the 2nd defendant, had pointed a black pistol-like object at PW1 and told him not to move. And then after that, the 2nd defendant fled as well.
PW1 checked the shop and discovered that a total of 12 second-hand watches worth about $762,500 had been stolen. Staff of another shop in the same plaza and a security guard also saw part of what happened. They saw the window of the shop had been smashed. And the security guard was in fact threatened by a knife held by the 2nd defendant and told not to get too close, and the 2nd defendant also told him that he had a gun. The security guard left and, subsequently, the robbers fled to the back alley of the shopping plaza.
Police subsequently seized a knife, two hammers, three watches which were subsequently identified to be part of the stolen property valued at about $181,000 was discovered from the rear alley. Also found was a black glove and an air gun in the alley. The air gun was subsequently examined and found not to be in working order. CCTV also confirmed the course of the robbery.
And immigration records show that the 1st defendant entered Hong Kong on 20 December and left Hong Kong at 10.20 pm on 22 December 2019, which was shortly after the robbery. He returned to Hong Kong on 5 January and left again on 12 January and returned on the same day that night.
Immigration records also show that the 2nd defendant came to Hong Kong at about 12.04 am on 22 December 2019 and left Hong Kong on the same day that evening at 9.42 pm, and he returned to Hong Kong on 7 January 2020.
Both defendants were arrested on 13 January 2020. And the Octopus cards which were seized from each of them and confirmed that they had left the scene via the MTR.
When the 1st defendant was arrested, the police also found two watches which were stolen from the shop, valued at about $74,500, hidden in the false ceiling of the room which the 1st defendant was occupying.
In a subsequent video-recorded interview, the 1st defendant said he was a vegetable seller in Guangzhou and he came to Hong Kong for robbery. And he gave an account about how he was recruited about 10 days before the offence by a fellow villager called “Ah Ka” who promised that the proceeds of the robbery would be shared with him. And so the defendant said he bought a hammer for the offence.
And the 1st defendant admitted that he and the wanted person were responsible for smashing the display window while the 2nd defendant was responsible for stopping people getting too close. And he said they fled by MTR and went to Yau Ma Tei after the offence. He also identified the two hammers and the air gun seized by the police from the rear alley as those that had been used in the robbery.
Video-recorded interview was taken from the 2nd defendant and he admitted that he lived in the mainland and was unemployed, and he said that the Octopus card seized from him belonged to him.
The defendants, each of them has a clear record in Hong Kong. The 1st defendant is aged 25 and the 2nd defendant is aged 26.
In mitigation, Ms Moosdeen has submitted that the 1st defendant is remorseful and that he committed this offence because he owed money, and that he never intended to use the knife. Well, the knife was used. It was used to threaten the security guard. Whatever financial circumstances was that the 1st defendant had, it was not an excuse to commit the robbery. The only mitigation I can see in his case is the fact that he pleaded guilty at the committal.
As far as the 2nd defendant is concerned, again, he was in similar circumstances according to Mr Leung. He owed money. He came to Hong Kong presumably to work but no work was forthcoming, so he had to resort to robbery in order to repay money he owed. Again, it is a fact that as far as the 2nd defendant is concerned, the only mitigation is that he did plead guilty at the committal.
Now, this was quite a well-planned robbery: there were three persons involved; they armed themselves with hammers in order to smash the window display glass; and also they armed themselves with a knife, which was a long knife, quite threatening in appearance, and also with an air gun which, to the uninitiated, looks like a pistol, although it was subsequently examined and shown to not be working. However, that does not diminish the threat ordinary citizens will feel if a gun of this nature was pointed at them.
Furthermore, as has been said by the Court of Appeal in one of the cases, that is, The Queen v Yu Tai Wing, as early as February 1995 and this was case number 454/1994, the Court of Appeal made the observation that:
“...no distinction should be made between cases where genuine firearms are used but not discharged and those in which imitation firearms are used. Obviously, the risk that a loaded genuine firearm carried by a robber might be discharged in the course of such robbery does not exist where the robber is armed with an imitation firearm. But the chance that the police or security guards who are called to or happen upon the scene might open fire in the course of such robberies cannot be overlooked. The risk of innocent bystanders being killed or injured is always present in circumstances where decisions have to be made in split seconds.”
So the gravity of this offence can be seen in the words of the Court of Appeal back in 1995.
This, as I have said, was well planned: there were three robbers; they were armed with hammers and an air gun and a knife. Citizens going about their business were threatened by the knife and also the gun, and therefore, it is a very serious offence. Things could go wrong and people could be hurt. So although they have a clear record in Hong Kong, a deterrent sentence is called for. And on top of that, another aggravating factor is that they came to Hong Kong presumably to commit this offence as was said by the 1st defendant in his video-recorded interview. They came on the same day and they left shortly after the robbery.
I am therefore of the view that a starting-point sentence with all these aggravating factors should be one of 12 years’ imprisonment. And having taken into account their plea at the earliest opportunity, showing their remorse, I will give them the full one-third discount. And so they will each be sentenced to prison for 8 years.