COURT: The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of robbery, contrary to section 10(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Chapter 210. He pleaded guilty before a magistrate and was committed to the Court of First Instance for sentence. Today, the accused confirmed his plea and admitted the Summary of Facts in support before me.
I shall now come to the facts in relation to those three counts.
The 1st count occurred at about 9.35 pm on 14 February 2020. The female victim was a night shift security guard working alone in the shroff office of an industrial building and the location was in Kwai Chung area. The accused robbed her with a 1.5 feet long knife and took away $300 cash from her as well as her mobile phone that valued at HK$3,000.
The 2nd count occurred at about 3 o’clock on 16 February 2020. At about 2.45 am on that day, the accused boarded a taxi outside Kwai Hing MTR Station and he asked the driver to drive him to Cheung Sha Wan area. The taxi arrived at Cheung Sha Wan Road at about 3 am. The accused took out a knife of around 8-inch long and declared robbery. The victim surrendered a total of $1,270 cash to him, and then the accused left.
About five minutes later, that is, at 3.05 am, the accused boarded another taxi at Cheung Sha Wan Road and asked to go to Shek Lei in Kwai Chung. The taxi arrived at Ta Chuen Ping Street of Kwai Chung at 3.15 am. The accused displayed a knife of about 1 foot long and declared robbery. The victim surrendered $300 cash to the accused, who also asked for the victim’s wallet. The victim pretended to get his wallet and seized the opportunity to get off the taxi and fled. And subsequently, he was able to identify the accused in an identification parade.
According to the CCTV installed in the industrial building of the 1st count, the male who robbed the 1st victim entered the shroff office with a knife in his hand at about 9.35pm., and after the robbery, he got into the lift of Shek Cheung House of Shek Lei Estate. And according to the car camera of the third victim, i.e. the second taxi driver, and also the CCTV installed at the offence location, the man who robbed the taxi driver was seen entering Shek Lei (II) Estate at around 3.17 am on 16 February.
The accused was arrested by police at about five minutes past midnight on 22 February 2020, when he was seen leaving Shek Cheung House. Under caution, he admitted that he had committed the three robberies because he became jobless during the coronavirus pandemic and asked for a chance.
In the subsequent video-recorded interview, he stated that he was a transportation worker. He committed the robberies because he was jobless during the coronavirus pandemic. In respect of the 1st count, he said at that time he was wondering around in Shek Lei area. He saw a woman sitting in the security room alone, so he wanted to make some money and robbed her. He committed the robbery with a knife that he picked up from his home. It was about 7 to 8 inches long. And then after the robbery, he had discarded the victim’s mobile phone.
In respect of the 2nd count, he said he was hanging around in Kwai Hing area at about 3 am on 16 February 2020. He decided to commit the robbery as he failed to ask for financial help from a friend, and he robbed the taxi driver with the same knife that he used in the 1st count.
After robbing that taxi driver, he hailed another taxi and robbed the driver with the same knife again. He has spent all the money on milk powder and diapers, and discarded the knife after the offence.
The accused is 33 years of age with a total of 11 previous convictions. Two of his convictions were for offences involving dishonesty. In October 2002, when he was 13 years old, a probation order was imposed upon his conviction for the offence of theft. In July 2013, when he was 24 years old, he was again convicted of theft and sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment. He was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment in July 2020 for two trademark offences which were his last convictions. Before that, he was serving 46 months’ sentence for a case of trafficking in dangerous drug and he was discharged from prison in respect of the drug offence in July 2019, i.e. he was discharged from prison about seven months before he committed the present offences.
In mitigation, defence counsel Mr Victor Ho informed the court that the accused had worked as a transport worker before his arrest. He attained an education level of Secondary 2. He is married with a 4-year-old daughter and lives with his father in a public housing estate.
Counsel invited this court to take into account that the accused pleaded guilty to the charges in the first opportunity, that he committed the robberies alone and did not cause any injuries to the victims. There was a close proximity of the offences, in particular for Counts 2 and 3 which were committed within half an hour on the same day.
Counsel also submitted three mitigating letters from the accused, his father and his former employer respectively, to plead for leniency. In his letter, the accused said due to the social unrest activities and the pandemic in 2019 and 2020, his full time job became daily job and work has been substantially reduced. He committed the offences due to financial difficulty. The accused said his former employer also agreed to re-employ him after he has served his sentence.
Counsel also pray in aid the sentencing judgment in HKSAR v Leung Ka Ho, HCCC 15/2021 and HKSAR v Chau Ka Shing, HCCC 235/2017.
According to the sentencing guidelines for armed robbery set out in the case of Mo Kwong Sang v The Queen [1981] HKLR 610, the appropriate starting point in an ordinary case of armed robbery where the accused carried a knife or other dangerous weapon (excluding firearms) which he displayed to his victim should be 5 years’ imprisonment. If such a robbery involves an invasion of private premises, a sentence of 6 years would be appropriate. The sentence should be increased if other aggravating factors are present.
Offences committed against taxi drivers are very serious indeed. As Mrs Justice Campbell-Moffat said in the case of HKSAR v Ho Kwai Che, HCCC 364/2020, taxi drivers perform a valuable public service and deserve the protection of the courts, especially those drivers who work anti-social hours, so that the citizens of Hong Kong can feel safe travelling at night. They place themselves in a vulnerable position because they have no idea who is going to get into their cars.
In the case of The Queen v Li Lun Hoi, CACC 1387/1983, the Court of Appeal accepted that taxi drivers must be protected and the court would not interfere in the normal case of taxi robberies with sentences of 5 and 6 years. This, however, applies only to cases where minimum or no violence is used, and a weapon, other than a firearm, is merely displayed.
In the case of The Queen v Tran Van Anh [1993] 2 HKCLR 122, three men robbed a taxi driver in the early hours of the morning. The driver’s hair was pulled and a sharp weapon was pointed at his throat. The driver sustained no injuries. The Court of Appeal said at page 124:
“Taxi drivers... are particularly vulnerable to robbery, especially those who ply for hire late at night or in the early hours of the morning or who pick up or drop passengers in quiet locations. Henceforward, sentences of 7 years’ imprisonment after a contested trial would be justified for offences similar to that in the present case.”
The approach in Tran Van Anh was adopted by the Court of Appeal in Secretary for Justice v Tso Tsz Kin, CAAR 1/2003 and also in the case of HKSAR v Hussain Shakil, CACC 387/2011.
In sentencing, I have considered the whole circumstances of this case including the facts, the sentencing authorities, the personal circumstances of the accused and mitigation advanced on his behalf. I accept counsel’s submission that the accused committed the offences alone and he did not cause any injuries to the victims. Nonetheless, the circumstances of the offences were that the victims must have been terrified while they were facing the armed robber alone in the late evening or the small hours of the morning at a quiet location where nobody can come to their aid.
The accused pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to the full one-third sentencing discount. In all the circumstances, having regard to the mitigation advanced, this is the extent of discount he is entitled to.
In respect of the 1st count, I adopt a starting point of 5 years and reduce it to 40 months after the one-third discount for his plea. In respect of the 2nd and the 3rd counts, I adopt a starting point of 6 years each and reduce the sentences to 4 years after the reduction for his guilty plea.
All the offences were separate and distinct in nature. Even though the robberies in Counts 2 & 3 were committed in close proximity of time, they involved different victims at different locations. The sentences imposed for all three counts should be served consecutively to each other but for the totality principle.
Taking into account of all the circumstances, I am satisfied that an overall sentence of 5½ years’ imprisonment is appropriate after the guilty plea. To achieve this overall sentence, I order 14 months of the sentence in Charge 2 to run consecutively to the sentence in Charge 1, and also 12 months of the sentence in Charge 3 to run consecutively to the sentences in Charges 1 and 2.
The final sentence is one of 66 months, i.e. 5½ years’ imprisonment.