HKSAR v. DITTA ALLAH

DCCC 268/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 268 OF 2013

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant, Ditta Allah (aged 21) (male), appeared before me facing a single charge of robbery, contrary to section 10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2.  The particulars of offence alleged that the defendant on 21 December 2012 outside Shop D2, Ground Floor, No 135 Pei Ho Street, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon in Hong Kong together with Imtiaz Imran and other persons unknown, robbed Lo Wing Pun of one bag, cash of $1,746,420 Hong Kong currency and cash of ¥11,114 Renminbi.  He pleaded not guilty to the charge. 

3.  As a result of plea bargaining, the prosecution decided to put in an alternative charge of handling the stolen goods, contrary to section 24 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.  The particulars of this handling charge avers that the defendant, at the same time and in the vicinity of the same place, dishonestly received certain stolen goods, namely the bag which carrying the sum of the Hong Kong dollars and the sum of the Renminbi as stated in the robbery charge, knowing or believing the same to be stolen goods.  The defendant pleaded guilty to this handling charge instead and was duly convicted.  The plea being accepted by the prosecution, no verdict was therefore returned on the robbery charge.

4.  According to the amended summary of facts which has been admitted by the defendant, the robbery took place at about 2000 hours on 21 December 2012 when PW1, Mr Lo Wing Pun, was standing outside his money exchange shop in Sham Shui Po carrying a shoulder bag containing the sum of Hong Kong dollars and Renminbi in cash as stated.  Whilst he was waiting for his staff to lock up his shop, suddenly two males approached and snatched the shoulder bag that he was carrying and the two men immediately fled into an adjacent rear lane.  Although terrified, PW1 shouted “Robbery” and gave chase.  The two men then ran out of the rear lane into Kweilin Street near the entrance to the Sham Shui Po MTR station where they were joined by the defendant.  The two robbers then went with the defendant into the nearby Cheung Sha Wan Road heading north in the direction of Yen Chow Street.  At the junction of Cheung Sha Wan Road and Yen Chow Street, one of the robbers split off to the right whereas the defendant and another robber went together and turned left.  It was at that stage that defendant was running with the black shoulder bag in his right hand. 

5.  Two auxiliary police officers were on patrol in Yen Chow Street.  They saw this and then gave chase.  During the pursuit, outside No 245 Apliu Street, the defendant was seen to throw the black shoulder bag to the floor.  Defendant continued to run but subsequently he was caught and subdued by the two police officers outside the No 234 Apliu Street.  The two robbers had eventually escaped. 

6.  The defendant was initially arrested at the scene for the offence of robbery and under caution defendant said “I was passing by, it is none of my business”.  Later, in the subsequent investigation, he had been interviewed with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter and during the interview he said under caution that a friend, Imtiaz Imran, called him at home at about 1900 hours on the date of offence and asked him to go downstairs to talk.  Imran told him that two males would later hand him a bag and led him to the garden in Sham Shui Po.  Imran left but about 10 minutes later he called again and told the defendant to wait at the Sham Shui Po MTR station exit C instead and the defendant did as he was told.  The defendant denied knowledge of the robbery but stated that next time he saw Imran, Imran was being chased by a Chinese man.  Imran passed the bag to him and he also began to run.  The defendant stated that as he was running with the bag, he realised something was wrong and discarded it to the ground.  The defendant also claimed not to have been offered any reward for his assistance. 

7.  Mr Joseph Lam, counsel for the defendant, asked that a background report to be obtained first in order to assist his mitigation.  I agree.  The defendant has a clear record in Hong Kong.  According to the background report, he came to Hong Kong from Pakistan in 2008.  He had only Form 4 education level.  Since 2008, he had worked on and off as a delivery worker in a logistic company named Sure Paradise with a monthly salary of $10,000.  This was actually supported by a letter issued by the said company.  In Hong Kong, he had an elder sister living in Tsuen Wan and also a step‑brother.  His work pattern was said to be not stable due to his association with some dubious friends. Both in the report and in the letter which is written by the defendant and submitted by Mr Lam on his behalf, the defendant had expressed his remorse and admitted his wrongdoing.  He regretted to have associated with these dubious friends who had infringed the law.  He promised the court that he would not repeat the same mistake in the future and be a good citizen and he asked for leniency. 

8.  Mr Lam submitted that the present offence is but an one-off incident which is totally out of the defendant’s character.  Mr Lam pointed out that the defendant is not one of those professional handlers and prayed in aid the fact that he has no previous conviction.  After his arrest, he had been co-operating with the police and Mr Lam reiterated that the defendant had no clear knowledge of the robbery but agreed that by the time he received the black bag, he already knew that there was something wrong with the bag. 

Sentencing considerations

9.  I should say at the outset that the defendant should consider himself very lucky in that the prosecution, after consideration, accepted his plea to handling of the stolen goods instead of pursuing the original robbery charge against him.  That is because the act of handling by the defendant in this case has indeed a very close proximity to the facts of the robbery case so much so that the defendant was actually caught in the situation and seen running together with the two robbers within only minutes after the robbery had taken place.  Although the present robbery was the kind of robbery where a weapon was not displayed and no violence was taking place, the sum involved is substantial.  According to the case of R v Yau Kwok Tung CACC17/1987, a sentence of not less than 4 years would be regarded as an appropriate sentence for this type of robbery. 

10.  In sentencing, I also have considered two cases.  One is the Hong Kong case of R v Tang Ho Yeung [1980] HKLR 357 and the other is the English case of R v Winterflood (1978) 68 Cr App R 291.  The circumstances of the robbery was indeed rather serious, and in this case as I have also said, the defendant was so closely connected with the original robbery as in the case of Winterflood.  In Tang Ho Yeung (supra), the Court of Appeal had actually referred to the remark of the famous English text of Sentencing by Thomas at page 169 where the learned author has said and I also quote:-

“The level of sentence appropriate to the casual or opportunist handler who receives property on an isolated occasion will vary with the value and quantity of the property and the circumstances of the theft.”

11.  Even the defendant steadfastly maintained that he was innocent and insisted that he was ignorant about the robbery, which seems to have been accepted by the prosecution, what cannot be denied was the fact that what the defendant had done in this case was actually to facilitate the disposal of the very large quantity of cash which had just been snatched from the victim by the two robbers outside his own shop.  Even according to the version or explanation offered by the defendant in his record of interview, it did not make sense that he failed to make any further enquiry when he was first approached by his friend to assist to receive a bag in such circumstances.  Effectively, what the defendant had done was to turn a blind eye and willingly to be used by the robbers.

12.  In these circumstances, I think that the proper sentence for the starting point for this handling charge should only be one of 3 years’ imprisonment.  The only mitigation is of course the defendant’s plea of guilty and for which he would be entitled to the customary one-third discount. 

13.  Ditta Allah, please stand up.  Based on the above, for this offence of handling the stolen goods, you are therefore sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.