HKSAR v. LAW CHUN HO AND OTHERS

HCCC 219/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1319

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 219 OF 2025

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: All three defendants were convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit robbery on their own plea. In addition, the 2nd defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of dangerous drugs.

The Summary of Facts admitted by all of you in the Magistracy read as follows.

“Mr Choi Ka-cheung was a patron of a mahjong parlour located at No. 25 to 39 Hong Ning Road in Sau Mau Ping, Kowloon. Mr Choi had the habit of carrying cash of about 50,000 to 60,000 for every visit.

On 13 March 2023, the 3rd defendant and Mr Choi played mahjong at the same table inside the mahjong parlour. At that time, the 3rd defendant asked personal questions of Mr Choi, such as Mr Choi’s business background and Mr Choi’s pattern of visiting the mahjong parlour. During the mahjong games, Mr Choi had taken out his cash for counting.

On 26 March 2023, Mr Choi visited the mahjong parlour by around 9.30 pm. Unbeknown to Mr Choi, telephone calls were exchanged between the 1st defendant and 3rd defendant daily from 25 March 2023 onwards and by around 10 pm on 26 March 2023. The 1st defendant and the 3rd defendant gathered at a restaurant on Ngau Tau Kok Road, which was a few minutes’ walk from Hong Ning Road. They left the restaurant together by around 11 pm on 26 March 2023, and then lingered separately in the area of Ngau Tau Kok Road and Hong Ning Road.

Shortly before midnight on 26 March 2023, Mr Choi finished playing mahjong and left the mahjong parlour. He walked home along Hong Ning Road. At that time, he was carrying 40,000 to 50,000 cash, a gold necklace, a gold bracelet, and an iPhone 12 Pro Max. About the same time, the 1st defendant stood along Hong Ning Road opposite to Yee On Centre, No. 45 Hong Ning Road, Sau Mau Ping.

As Mr Choi arrived outside Shop 10C, Ground Floor of Yee On Centre, by around midnight between 26 and 27 March 2023, the 1st defendant approached Mr Choi from behind and choked Mr Choi’s neck with the right hand holding a cutter with the blade exposed. 1st defendant claimed to be a policeman and told Mr Choi to freeze and to take out all his possessions. Mr Choi pushed the 1st defendant’s right hand away. At the same time, the 1st defendant used his left hand to search the pocket of Mr Choi’s jacket.

Mr Choi and the 1st defendant struggled, and they both fell to the ground twice. After Mr Choi yelled at the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant ran away along Hong Ning Road. Immediately after the 1st defendant running from Hong Ning Road into Yee On Street, which was the first street junction from Yee On Centre, the 3rd defendant and Madam Lau followed the 1st defendant along the same side of the pavement on Yee On Street by walking side by side and sharing an umbrella.

Around 10 minutes later, after the first robbery attempt, the 1st defendant, the 3rd defendant, and Madam Lau arrived at MTR Ngau Tau Kok Station. They together took a train to MTR Kowloon Bay Station and went to Telford Plaza in Kowloon Bay. They lingered at the podium of Telford Plaza for about an hour. In the first robbery attempt, Mr Choi suffered a 0.5 cm superficial laceration on the neck and abrasion on his right knee.

By around 7.30 pm on 3 April 2023, Mr Choi visited the mahjong parlour. Unbeknown to Mr Choi, by around 10.15 pm that night, the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant, the 3rd defendant, and Madam Lau gathered at the restaurant. They left the restaurant by around 11.00 pm and lingered in the area near Hong Ning Road and Yee On Street.

By around 11.30 pm on 3 April 2023, Mr Choi left the mahjong parlour carrying cash of approximately 60,000. He walked along Hong Ning Road as he reached outside Shop 10A, Ground Floor of Yee On Centre, the 1st and the 2nd defendant pushed Mr Choi to the ground from behind. The 1st and the 2nd defendant punched Mr Choi’s head and body with fists and some unknown hard object. The 1st and the 2nd defendant further searched Mr Choi’s pockets but were unable to take away anything.

Mr Choi yelled for help and police officers patrolling in the vicinity rushed to the scene. The officers intercepted the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant at the scene by around 11.38 pm. Mr Choi identified the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant as the attackers and further identified the 1st defendant as the culprit of the first robbery attempt. During initial inquiries, the 1st defendant told the police that Mr Choi had been targeted because Mr Choi had lived a life that was too high profile.

Upon search, the police found and seized inside a shoulder bag carried by the 2nd defendant, a resealable plastic bag containing 0.82 grammes crystalline solid containing methamphetamine hydrochloride and inside the 2nd defendant’s left sock, a resealable plastic bag containing 0.16 grammes solid containing cocaine.

During initial inquiries, the 2nd defendant told the police that the plastic bags containing illicit drugs, ‘Ice’ and “Coke”. Upon arrest and under caution for possession of dangerous drugs, 2nd defendant said the ‘Ice’ and “Coke” were for his own consumption.

Upon further search at the police station, an extendable metal baton was found inside the 2nd defendant’s shoulder bag. Under caution, the 2nd defendant said he carried the baton for hitting someone. As further revealed by the 2nd defendant during subsequent video-recorded interviews with the police, earlier on 3 April 2023, 2nd defendant was asked by the 3rd defendant for a meet up.

The 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant, the 3rd defendant and Madam Lau met up in Kowloon Bay at night on 3 April 2023 and then travelled to the restaurant together. At the restaurant and in the presence of the 3rd defendant and Madam Lau, the 1st and the 2nd defendant discussed the plan to target Mr Choi later that night. 1st defendant offered a remuneration of several tens of thousands of dollars to the 2nd defendant for his participation.

At the time of the second robbery attempt, the 1st defendant gave signal to the 2nd defendant and then they started assaulting Mr Choi. The 1st defendant and 2nd defendant punched Mr Choi’s head.

In the second robbery attempt, Mr Choi suffered hematoma over the right parietal region, and redness and abrasions over bilateral periorbital regions.

CCTV footages further revealed that the 3rd defendant and Madam Lau were standing on the street opposite the scene at the time of the second robbery attempt.

Around 5 am on 4 April 2023, police arrived at the residence of the 3rd defendant and arrested him for robbery. As revealed by the 3rd defendant during a subsequent video‑recorded interview with the police, the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant were friends. Madam Lau was the girlfriend of the 1st defendant.

Between about 25 March 2023 and 3 April 2023, both days inclusive, in Hong Kong, the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant conspired together with Madam Lau to commit robbery. Further, on 3 April 2023, the 2nd defendant had in his possession the dangerous drugs seized in the instant case.”

The 1st defendant was born on 22 December 1991. He is now 34 and at the time of the offence he was 31. He was born in Hong Kong and had attained education up to Form 3. He was employed as a drainage service worker before the present demand. He is married with two sons.

He had previous convictions relating to dangerous drugs and he was arrested for an offence of failing to provide a specimen of breath for screening breath tests. He was given police bail and was asked by police to report to court for that offence on 20 January 2023. He failed to do that and committed the present offence while he jumped bail. After the arrest of this offence, he was taken to court and was given 2 weeks’ imprisonment plus disqualification for the failing to provide specimen offence.

As I have already indicated, the fact that the 1st defendant committed the present offence while he was on bail for another offence and jumped bail for that other offence is an aggravating factor.

2nd defendant, Mr Wan, he was born in Hong Kong on 14 September 1987.  He is now 38 and was 35 at the time of the offence.  Likewise, he attained education up to Form 3 and at the time of the offence, he was unemployed although he used to work in garage and in a pest control company.  

He had previous convictions relating to drugs, namely, in 2011, he was convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs in the District Court and was sentenced to 2 years and 10 months. Later, in 2014, he was again convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs in the Court of First Instance and was sentenced to 4 years and 8 months.

The 3rd defendant was also born in Hong Kong on 26 November 1985. He is now 40 and 37 at the time of the offence. He attained up to Secondary education in Hong Kong and was a construction worker prior to the present remand. He is married with a daughter and a son. Son was born while he was remanded for the present offence.

He had two previous convictions of violence but they are of some years ago, one in 2003, one in 2008. Other than that, he also had convicted of three counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs in 2010 in the Court of First Instance.

There are a number of aggravating factors in this case. First, this is a conspiracy to commit robbery and the plan was executed on two occasions with just over a week apart. Secondly, no doubt this was a pre-planned robbery and aimed at a particular victim who would carry large amount of cash on him. Third, it involved at least two in the first attempt and at least three in the second attempt.

And as I have said before, in the case of the 1st defendant, there is an additional aggravating factor in that he committed the present offence while he failed to answer police bail since 20 January 2023, for failure to provide specimen of breath.

In Mo Kwong Sang [1981] HKLR 610, the Court of Appeal said:

“The appropriate sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery where the accused was carrying a knife which he displayed to his victim should normally be 5 years. If any physical violence is used on any of the victim, we suggest that a sentence of 7 years should be considered.”

The Court of Appeal carried on and said:

“These suggested sentences should be increased if there are other aggravating factors. And the list is not exhaustive.”

Examples given were:

“The presence of more than one person in the group of robbers.”

Second example is:

“A multiplicity of offences of a similar kind.”

In Ma Ping Wah [2000] 2 HKLRD 312, the Court of Appeal said:

“We are satisfied that head bashing robberies are in a category of sufficient gravity to justify a particular band of guideline sentence, which was not contemplated at the time when judgment was given in that case. In our judgment, the usual sentence to be imposed for such robberies, following a contested trial, where it is established that a deliberate blow to the head with a weapon capable of causing injury to the brain has been struck by the robber or the culprit who is intended on the robbery, should not be less than 8 years’ imprisonment.”

However, the Court of Appeal goes on to say:

“This is not, of course, a straitjacket, and there may be some offences where a lesser penalty can be imposed depending on all of the circumstances. Equally, depending on how severely the victim is injured, there will be other cases for which greatly increased sentence will be required.”

Mr Wong argued on behalf of the 1st defendant that this is not a head bashing case. He submitted that the prosecution, represented by Mr Corlett before me, did not put forward that this case is a head bashing case despite the authority Ma Ping Wah was put in by the prosecution in the plea and sentence bundle.

I am persuaded that this is not a head bashing robbery because I accepted that the deliberate blow to the head is not aimed to knock out the victim so that the robbery could become easy, which is the ordinary type of head bashing case that we talk about. Be that as it may, violence was used on the victim against his head, and he did suffer injuries to his head.

As stated in Mo Kwong Sang, when physical violence is used, a sentence of 7 years should be considered, and I will consider the physical violence used in this case is severe because it was aimed at his head and did cause injury to the head.

Taking all the aggravating factors into consideration, in the case of the 1st defendant, I adopt a starting point of 8½ years. There is no mitigating factor except your early plea. I will give you one-third discount, and the sentence which I pass on you is one of 5 years and 8 months.

For the 2nd defendant, you were involved in the second attempt only. I adopt a starting point of 7½ years. There is no mitigation in your case also except your plea. I will give you one-third discount, and for the 1st count, therefore, I sentence you to a term of 5 years’ imprisonment.

As to the 2nd count, in view of the small quantities and the circumstances of how the dangerous drugs were found, I reckon the latent risk of you supplying them to others is very low, despite your previous convictions of trafficking in dangerous drugs nearly 10 years ago.

So for the 2nd count, I adopt a starting point of 12 months, and for your plea, I reduce it to 8 months. I see no reason why that 8 months should not be made to run consecutively to the conspiracy to commit robbery. Therefore, the total term of imprisonment for both counts is one of 5 years and 8 months.

For the 3rd defendant, though you did not attack the victim, but I do not accept your role as a mere lookout. You are the one who is aware of the fact that the victim would carry large amount of cash, and the time that he frequented at the mahjong parlour. No doubt you were present in the vicinity to tip off the 1st defendant and identify the victim to the 1st defendant. You were seen in the vicinity mingling with the 1st defendant on both occasions prior to the attempted robbery.

In your case, I do not intend to differentiate your role with the 1st defendant, as this is a conspiracy, and each culprit must have a different role in carrying out the plan. I offered you the opportunity of a Newton hearing to determine whether you are aware of the weapon would be used in the robbery. You declined.

In the circumstances, as I have already indicated to your counsel, I do not accept your mitigation of unawareness of weapon would be used. Though I have great sympathy for your son’s health condition, it does not help in persuading me to adopt a lower starting point in view of your previous convictions. However, I will adopt a starting point slightly lower than the 1st defendant, because you do not commit the offence while you are on bail, like the 1st defendant.

I accordingly adopt a starting point of 8 years and 3 months. Again, there is no mitigation in your case except your early plea. I will give you one-third discount, and I sentence you a term of imprisonment of 5 years and 6 months.