HKSAR v. LAM SIU YING AND ANOTHER

HCCC 234/2019

[2019] HKCFI 3159

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 234 OF 2019

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:

Both defendants have pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court for one count of robbery to which they are remitted to this court for sentence.

In the evening on 20 September 2018, both defendants wearing surgical mask boarded a New Territories taxi at Sheung Shui and requested the driver to go to Ping Che, Ta Kwu Ling. When the taxi reached the destination, a remote part of the New Territories, the 2nd defendant suddenly strangled the taxi driver with the driver’s seat belt. At the same time, the 1st defendant used a hammer to attack the driver on his head. Both defendants declared robbery and the taxi driver quickly surrendered all his properties. As a result of their attack, the taxi driver sustained a 3‑centimetre laceration over right scalp and 4-centimetre laceration over left scalp. Both defendants were arrested seven days later as a result of excellent detective work by the police.

Under caution, the 1st defendant admitted that they purchased the hammer and the surgical masks earlier that evening and that she hit the driver until he bled. The driver then asked her to stop and the driver surrendered all his properties. It was the 2nd defendant’s suggestion to rob.

Under caution, the 2nd defendant said more or less the same things.

On the last hearing, their sentence was adjourned so that the court could obtain a training centre report for both and a psychiatric report for the 2nd defendant. It was also pointed out in the last hearing that the court would not necessarily follow the recommendation put forward by the Correctional Services officer.

Background from the training centre report reveals that the 1st defendant grows up in a single-parent family. Due to inadequate parental supervision, when the 1st defendant entered secondary school, her academic result and conduct started to deteriorate dramatically. Worse still, she started to mingle with undesirable people. That is people with triad background. Whilst studying in Form 5 (ie 2018), the 1st defendant committed the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and criminal intimidation and was sentenced in July 2019 to undergo training at the rehabilitation centre.

Background information further reveals that in August 2018, the 1st defendant came to know the 2nd defendant, a Sun Yee On triad. Lacking money and under the suggestion of the 2nd defendant, they came up with the idea of robbing taxi driver.

The 1st defendant is considered by the Correctional Service officers to be suitable to undergo training at the training centre.

As for the 2nd defendant, his background is very much similar to the 1st defendant. He was also brought up in a single-parent family. After entering secondary school, he became wayward and mingled with dubious peers. After stealing money from home, the 2nd defendant decided to move away. In 2017, after leaving school, the 2nd defendant became a triad member of Sun Yee On. According to the 2nd defendant, he and the 1st defendant became lovers in August 2018. Out of greed, they agreed to rob a taxi.

According to the report, the 2nd defendant is also suitable to undergo training at the training centre. During his remand, the 2nd defendant was observed by the psychiatrist to be mentally stable. He does not need any medication treatment.

This is a very nasty premeditated robbery on taxi driver. The offence was committed at night in a remote part of the New Territories - a carefully chosen location. The 2nd defendant used a seat belt to strangle the driver, followed by the 1st defendant using a hammer to strike the driver on his head. The multiple strikes on the victim caused him to bleed. And as a result, the driver had to surrender his properties to avoid further violence. In other words, extreme violence had been used in this case. As a result, the driver sustained injuries over his head and body. The use of surgical mask, the careful choice of a destination and the purchase of a hammer prior all indicated a carefully planned robbery.

Although both defendants are suitable for undergoing training at the training centre, it seems clear to the court that despite their relative young age, immediate imprisonment is warranted given the seriousness of the case. This is a neck-strangling, head-bashing taxi robbery. The life of the taxi driver could easily be taken away but for his quick surrender of his valuables.

In The Secretary for Justice v Ma Ping Wah [2000] 2 HKLRD 312, the Court of Appeal laid down guidelines for head-bashing robbery. It was decided that where the robbers intended on robbery and struck a deliberate blow to the head with a weapon capable of causing injuries to the brain, the sentence following a contested trial should not be less than 8 years. It was further provided in that case that in cases of serious crime such as the one, a training centre order did not provide an adequate deterrent effect.

This is not a simple head-bashing street robbery. There is also the strangulation. The sentence therefore should go beyond 8 years’ imprisonment. Further, this is also a taxi‑robbery case. Time and time again, the court has emphasised the importance in protecting taxi drivers from this kind of violence. This additional feature should place the starting point beyond 9 years’ imprisonment.

Although the 2nd defendant was 16 at the time and had a clear record, he could hardly be described as a person of good character. However, in light of their age, I am prepared to fix the starting point at not more than 9 years’ imprisonment. I hope they can treasure their times inside the prison and use their times in further studies. Given the plea tendered by the two defendants at the Magistrates’ Court for the offence they both stand convicted, they are each sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment.