HKSAR v. WU ZHIQIANG

HCCC 137/2019

[2019] HKCFI 2085

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 137 OF 2019

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:

Defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of robbery, contrary to section 10(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210, and one count of burglary, contrary to section 11(1) and (4) of the same ordinance.

The defendant entered a flat near midday on 14 February 2018. Madam Xu, a female resident, saw him in the kitchen. She was scared and tried to retreat into the master bedroom but was caught up. Defendant locked the door and threatened her to surrender her valuables. She was pulled and grabbed by the defendant whilst she went to get her wallet, and the defendant took HK$15,000 from it. Defendant then demanded for her iPhone and when she surrendered it, he even asked her to pull up her vest for him to take a photograph but she refused.

Despite the imploring by Madam Xu, the defendant refused to leave. When she told him there were other valuables outside and she tried unsuccessfully to unlock the bedroom door, the defendant took out a screwdriver to prise open the lock, grabbed her by the neck and dragged her out. The victim then opened a cupboard to take out two knives and threshed them at the defendant behind her.

When the defendant tried to take away the knives, she bit his wrist. There then was violent struggle and she was grabbed by the hair and pulled into the master bedroom. Defendant took away a tablet and two iPads. Madam Xu was then grabbed by the hair again back into the living room and before the defendant left, he took her husband’s jacket.

The defendant returned to the same unit again in the morning on 28 March 2018. Madam Xu’s husband was woken up. He confronted the defendant and defendant climbed out from the window. There was a struggle between them and the defendant suffered a fall.

The defendant was arrested slightly more than half a month later and he made admission to the robbery and the burglary.

The defendant is now aged 32. He has four occasions of criminal records with two charges similar to the 2nd charge for which he was sentenced to a total of 20 months’ imprisonment in August 2016, and his last discharge was on 22 July 2017.

By way of mitigation, I was told that the defendant is divorced. He was a construction site worker earning about 20,000 to 30,000 per month and the sole breadwinner of the family. He claimed to have committed the present offence out of financial difficulties and greediness. Counsel urged me to exercise leniency and invite the court to pass concurrent sentences in respect of the two separate offences.

In sentencing the defendant, I have taken into account the facts of this case, defendant’s plea of guilty and mitigation forwarded by counsel. I have also referred to the various tariffs and authorities. I have perused the three mitigation letters handed up to me, although they are not translated.

I regard the robbery as on a par with armed robbery. The defendant had a screwdriver on him and had used that to prise open the bedroom door lock in the course of the robbery.

The present case involved invasion of private premises. There was prolonged confrontation with the victim and the victim was subject to humiliation, threats and ill treatments, as a result of which she suffered injuries.

I adopt a starting point of 7 years’ imprisonment for the robbery charge. He is entitled to the full one-third discount for his plea and he is sentenced to 56 months for the 1st charge.

For Charge 2, it was an attempt to invade the same domestic premises. I adopt a starting point of 3 years reduced to 2 years by his plea of guilty and he is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for the 2nd charge.

These are two completely distinct offences and aggravated by the fact that they involved the same residential premises. The sentences should run consecutively.

Having taken into account totality principle, I order 18 months out of Charge 2 to run consecutively with the sentence in Charge 1, making a total of 74 months’ imprisonment.