HKSAR v. USMAN SAQIB

DCCC 98/2023

[2024] HKDC 540

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 98 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  Defendant has been convicted after trial of a single offence of robbery and the basic facts of sentencing show this is an unarmed robbery between two men who are well-known to each other.

2.  The direct evidence of assault in respect of the robbery is a threat and then an execution by a slap to the face.  No injury appears to have been caused by that.  There is a later abrasion caused by a weapon of opportunity being used, part of a bike cable, that was caused by a number of blows and in itself forms part of the wider picture of the events surrounding the assault.

3.  The defendant, I am told, is a 36 year-old male, born in Pakistan, educated to secondary school Level 1, is single, a Form 8 holder in Hong Kong. He has been convicted on four previous occasions.  The only case of any relevance to this offence is an offence in 2011, an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.  He received a sentence of 2 months’ imprisonment.  It is not directly relevant and is in fact quite an old offence now.

4.  As I have indicated, this does appear to be what one might call a less serious robbery, although all robberies are serious.  The amount taken is small, $200.  The two men were on the face of it well-known to each other and it appears to be an opportunistic offence.

5.  As this is an unarmed robbery the guidelines found in Mo Kwong Sang generally are not applicable.  There are no actual guideline sentences for unarmed robberies.  Sentences normally will range between 3 to 5 years’ imprisonment depending on the nature of the assault element of the robbery, the violence inflicted and the amount of money taken.  The case of HKSAR v Gursevak [2019] 2 HKLRD 274, indicates where the defendant is a Form 8 holder, that is an aggravating feature of the offence and can in District and High Court cases lead to enhancement in excess of 6 months’ imprisonment.

6.  I have already set out the features that I think are relevant to the sentencing in respect of the robbery.  I would take a sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment as being appropriate for that offence.  That is without considering the aggravating factor that the defendant is a Form 8 holder.  In respect of that aggravating feature, this offence occurred between two Pakistani males in a public place frequented by a distinct community of people.  I find that in this particular case on its particular circumstances an enhancement of 3 months’ imprisonment would be sufficient.  That leads to a final sentence of 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment for this offence.  That will be the sentence.