HKSAR v. LEE CHUN HO

DCCC863/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 863 OF 2008

 ----------------------

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery.  This is Charge 1 in this case.  The robbery occurred on 17 June 1999.  Defendant and three other men, who are still at large, entered a restaurant in Tsuen Wan at 1.30 in the morning and robbed four men who were playing mahjong in a room inside the restaurant.  Two of the robbers were armed with knives.  No doubt the knives were brandished and used to threaten the victims.  The four victims were tied up with electric wires, and all their moneys, mobile phones, watches and also car key were taken from them.  The details of their losses were detailed in the particulars of Charge 1. 

2.  Another man, the fifth victim and employee of the restaurant, was also threatened and he too was tied up and put together with the other four victims.  He was made to surrender the keys of the restaurant.  The robbers took the car keys and parking ticket of one of the victims.  They took his car, used the parking ticket to exit as a getaway car.  The car was later found abandoned. 

3.  It was the parking ticket that led to the arrest of the defendant some 10 years after the crime.  The defendant left his fingerprint on the parking ticket.  The fingerprint of the defendant on the parking ticket was not identified at that time.  This was due to the technology of that time.  However, the fingerprint lifted remained an exhibit that was kept by the police for continued investigation.  It was until May 2008 when officers of the Identification Bureau, with the aid of enhanced technology, were able to identify the defendant from the fingerprint lifted.

4.  The defendant was co-operative with the police and he admitted the robbery.  He said he received $15,000 as his share from the proceeds of this robbery.  Defendant is now 36, married and has a steady job working as a container truck driver.  He had five previous convictions, including one for conspiracy to commit robbery in 1993, for which he had served 3 years’ imprisonment. 

5.  This present offence was in 1999 and he had no other conviction since.  Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of robbery, and he expressed remorse for this crime that he did 10 years ago.  It does appear that he has since turned over a new leaf.  In mitigation, this court was told that the defendant was then heavily into gambling and had gambling debts to repay. 

6.  I accept the defendant is very remorseful and this was demonstrated in his full admission to the police and his plea of guilty before this court.  Defendant wrote a letter to this court to express his remorse and asked this court for a lenient sentence.  From the letters submitted to this court in mitigation, I discerned that the defendant has seven other siblings.  Defendant appears to be the youngest in the family.  His wife, one elder brother, three elder sisters and nephew and his present employer all wrote to this court, asking for leniency in dealing with the defendant.

7.  This is a classic case of a man’s past catching up with him and that crime never pays and does not pay in the end.  Despite the defendant having turned over a new leaf, he has to bear the legal consequences of his crime before he could continue to live as a responsible citizen. 

8.  The starting point for armed robbery without use of firearm is 5 years’ imprisonment as in the case of Mo Kwong Sang.  Where there are aggravating factors, the starting point will be increased.  So, very often, the starting point for attempted robbery with aggravating factors, the starting point will be as high as 6 and 7 years. 

9.  There are aggravating factors in this case.  Firstly, the whole robbery was a premeditated enterprise with invasion of private premises; secondly, four robbers were acting in concert; thirdly, the victims were tied up; and fourthly, it was committed in the early morning hours.  The last factor, early morning hours, would be comparatively more serious if it were domestic premises. 

10.  I noted that the premises was a restaurant, and I also noted that minimum violence was used in the course of this robbery, i.e. the victims were not beaten up or ill-treated, but the knives that were used was enough to scare the daylight out of the victims. 

11.  In light of all the factors mentioned in this case, I take a starter of 6 years’ imprisonment.  I will give the defendant a full one-third discount for his plea.  I do not give any discount for the fact that the offence was only brought before the court 10 years after the crime. 

12.  I am most impressed with the use of enhanced technology in the Identification Bureau of the police.  It was this modern technology that enabled the police to solve some longstanding crimes that are still in the files.  The “delay” was not the fault of anybody, so I do not give discount for this factor.

13.  So on the charge, I sentence the defendant to 4 years' imprisonment.