DCCC164/2024 HKSAR v. SENG' ENGE BARAKAEL LUTHER - LawHero
DCCC164/2024
區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge Bernard Chung16/9/2025[2025] HKDC 1284
DCCC164/2024
A A
B B
DCCC 164/2024
[2025] HKDC 1284
C C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 164 OF 2024
F F
G G
---------------------------------------
H
HKSAR H
v
I I
SENG’ENGE Barakael Luther Defendant
J --------------------------------------- J
K K
Before: Deputy District Judge Bernard Chung
L Date: 17 September 2025 L
Present: Mr Percy Duncan C H, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
M M
Mr Hingorani Jeevan, instructed by Messrs Jesse H Y Kwok
N & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the N
Defendant
O O
Offence: [1] Robbery (搶劫罪)
P [2] Resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty (抗 P
Q
拒執行職責的警務人員) Q
R R
---------------------------------------
S REASONS FOR SENTENCE S
---------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant SENG’ENGE Barakael Luther (D) pleaded
C guilty before me to 2 Charges. Charge 1 “Robbery”, contrary to section 10 C
of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. Particulars of Offence stated that on 30
D D
September 2023, at Pottinger Street, Central, he, together with other
E persons unknown, robbed Mr KANG Jun (KANG) of one watch. Charge E
2 “Resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty”, contrary to
F F
section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance, Cap. 232. Particulars of offence
G stated that on the same day, in the vicinity of Lyndhurst Terrace and G
Cochrane Street, Central, he resisted Sergeant 3269, a police officer acting
H H
in the execution of his duty.
I I
Facts
J J
K 2. The facts of the case as admitted by D reveal that at about 3 K
am on 30 September 2023, KANG, a South Korean, had been drinking with
L L
friends in a bar in Lan Kwai Fong area. Shortly before 4:10 am he was
M feeling intoxicated and left the bar by himself as he wanted to look for a M
taxi to take him home. He was wearing a silver Rolex Submariner wrist
N N
watch (the watch) valued at about HK$88,000 on his left hand.
O O
3. Shortly afterwards when walking along Pottinger Street,
P P
KANG tripped and fell to the ground. An unknown black female with Afro
Q hairstyle approached to help him up. At almost the same time, D Q
approached KANG from behind, grabbed KANG’s left hand and attempted
R R
to remove the watch from KANG’s wrist. KANG tried to swing away D’s
S hands but was unable to do so. There was a struggle between D and KANG S
when the latter tried to stop D from removing his watch. About a minute
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
later, 2 more black males joined D. They surrounded and tailed KANG,
C moving slowly down Pottinger Street towards Lyndhurst Terrace. C
D D
4. When the group reached the junction with Lok Hing Lane D
E succeeded in removing the watch from KANG’s wrist. D handed it to one E
of the 2 black males mentioned above. D, the black female and the other 2
F F
black males then dispersed in different directions.
G G
5. The above incident was witnessed by a group of plainclothes
H H
police officers who were on duty nearby. Sergeant 3269 was the first
I officer to reach the scene. He chased after D along Lyndhurst Terrace I
towards Cochrane Street, shouting in English “Police” and “Stop”. D
J J
ignored the warning and continued to run away.
K K
6. D was finally caught up by the Sergeant at outside 37
L L
Cochrane Street. When the Sergeant tried to apprehend D, he revealed his
M identity and continued to warn D in English not to resist, but D kept M
struggling, using strong force to push away the Sergeant to try to get free.
N N
Finally, another officer of the team joined in and subdued D. D said at one
O stage in English that he had no idea what had happened. O
P P
7. During a subsequent video recorded interview in the police
Q station under caution, D denied robbing KANG and said he tried to run Q
away as he did not know he was being chased after by the police.
R R
S 8. D now admits he participated in a joint enterprise with the S
other 2 unknown African males and another female to rob KANG of his
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
watch, and that he had used force to struggle and push away the officer
C trying to arrest him, knowing the latter was a police officer. C
D D
Defendant’s Backgrounds and Mitigation
E E
9. D is 33 years old, born in Tanzania on 9 August 1992. He
F F
arrived in Hong Kong as a visitor from Guangzhou on 9 September 2023
G and was allowed to stay for 3 months. At the time of the offences he was G
residing in Chung King Mansion in Tsim Sha Tsui. He had no criminal
H H
record in Hong Kong.
I I
10. Mr Hingorani representing D submitted in mitigation that D
J J
was the third among 5 siblings in the family. His father passed away in
K 2006. His mother, living in Tanzania, is of poor health, suffering from K
chronic illness and relies heavily on D for medication, care and emotional
L L
support, as the other sibling were, for various reasons, unable to do so. D
M was the only sibling who had attained tertiary education, but yet to secure M
a formal employment. He came to Hong Kong following advice from a
N N
close friend of job opportunities here.
O O
11. Mr Hingorani submitted that D suffered severe adversity from
P P
an early age. The offences stemmed from overwhelming personal and
Q economic hardship, and an urgent need to protect and support his fragile Q
family, rather than criminal inclination. D has no prior criminal record.
R R
S 12. On the issue of proper starting point, Mr Hingorani submitted S
that the appropriate starting point for this case should be “something less
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
than 4 years”, citing The Queen v Yau Kwok Tung1, HKSAR v Ting Chiu
C & Another2, HKSAR v Lam Ka Hung3, HKSAR v Chan Sin Leung4, and C
5
HKSAR v Ku Kwok Wai in support.
D D
E 13. As to discount for plea, Mr Hingorani submitted that D had E
spent a considerable time in custody and was acting on legal advice when
F F
he maintained his not guilty pleas, and that the case has not reached the
G trial proper. He submitted that D ought to be given 25% discount, citing a G
passage in Ting Chiu in support.
H H
I Sentence I
J J
14. The maximum sentence for Charge 1 is life imprisonment and
K 6 months imprisonment and a fine of $5,000 for Charge 2. K
L L
15. In Mo Kwong Sang v R, the CA laid down the guideline that
M the usual starting point for robbery with weapon displayed by a single M
robber is 5 years imprisonment6. In Yau Kwok Tung, the CA stated that a
N N
sentence of 4 years imprisonment is at the top end of the tariff for robberies
O where weapons are not displayed 7. In Ting Chiu, the CA also stated that O
P P
1
[1987] HKLR 782
Q Q
2
[2003] 3 HKLRD 378
3
R unrep., CACC 294/2003, 29 January 2004 R
4
unrep., CACC 48/2006, 11 August 2006
S 5 S
[2012] 4 HKLRD 563
6
Mo Kwong Sang v R [1981] HKLR 610
T T
7
supra, at 783I
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
sentence for an unarmed robbery should as a matter of principle be lower
C than that for an armed robbery of the kind envisaged in Mo Kwong Sang. C
D D
16. In the present case the robbery was committed by at least 4
E culprits, including D, acting in concert. It occurred in the early hours in a E
public place.
F F
G 17. I do not consider the fact that the victim was heavily under the G
influence of alcohol and thus was not fully aware of what was happening
H H
amounts to a valid mitigating factor, as such a person deserves protection
I as much as a person in sober state in a public place. Given the seriousness I
of the offence, the personal backgrounds of D and his reasons for the
J J
commission of the offences carry little weight. The lack of previous
K criminal conviction in Hong Kong is not a mitigating factor either, as D K
was only a visitor here on short duration. In any event it could only be
L L
regarded as no aggravating factor on this issue. However, I do accept that
M no weapon had been used in this case, the force used on the victim was not M
great and there is no evidence that he had suffered any injury during the
N N
incident.
O O
18. Having taken all relevant matters into consideration, I adopt
P P
45 months as the starting point for Charge 1.
Q Q
19. For Charge 2, D was fully aware that he was to be arrested by
R R
the Sergeant for the robbery he had just committed, yet he put up struggles
S and used strong force to push the officer away in trying to escape from S
lawful arrest, only to be subdued when another officer arrived in time to
T T
provide support to the Sergeant.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C 20. I do accept that there is no evidence that either of the 2 officers C
involved in subduing D had suffered any physical injury.
D D
E 21. For Charge 2, I adopt 2 months as the starting point. E
F F
22. In HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam8, the CA laid down discounts to
G be given when a defendant entered guilty plea at various stages of a G
criminal trial: 20% discount on the first day of trial and less than 20%
H H
during the trial (after the first day of trial).
I I
23. This case was first called upon in the District Court on 28
J J
February 2024. On 24 September 2024, D indicated not guilty pleas before
K the Listing Judge and the case was set down for trial on 16 June 2025 with K
2 days reserved. D still maintained his not guilty pleas through his Counsel
L L
on the first day of trial, but changed his mind to guilty pleas on the second
M day only. However, I accept that due to reasons beyond D’s control, no M
formal pleas had been taken from him on the first day. I am prepared to
N N
accept that he entered his guilty pleas on the first day of trial. Therefore, D
O is entitled to about 20% discount for his guilty pleas. O
P P
24. The 2 offences are separate and distinct, the sentences should
Q be served consecutively. Q
R R
25. D is therefore sentenced as follows:
S Charge 1: 36 months S
T T
8
[2016] 5 HKLRD 1
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
Charge 2: 1 month and 2 weeks, consecutive to Charge 1
C Total sentence: 37 months and 2 weeks. C
D D
E E
F ( Bernard Chung ) F
Deputy District Judge
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
A A
B B
DCCC 164/2024
[2025] HKDC 1284
C C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
CRIMINAL CASE NO 164 OF 2024
F F
G G
---------------------------------------
H
HKSAR H
v
I I
SENG’ENGE Barakael Luther Defendant
J --------------------------------------- J
K K
Before: Deputy District Judge Bernard Chung
L Date: 17 September 2025 L
Present: Mr Percy Duncan C H, counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
M M
Mr Hingorani Jeevan, instructed by Messrs Jesse H Y Kwok
N & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the N
Defendant
O O
Offence: [1] Robbery (搶劫罪)
P [2] Resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty (抗 P
Q
拒執行職責的警務人員) Q
R R
---------------------------------------
S REASONS FOR SENTENCE S
---------------------------------------
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
1. The defendant SENG’ENGE Barakael Luther (D) pleaded
C guilty before me to 2 Charges. Charge 1 “Robbery”, contrary to section 10 C
of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. Particulars of Offence stated that on 30
D D
September 2023, at Pottinger Street, Central, he, together with other
E persons unknown, robbed Mr KANG Jun (KANG) of one watch. Charge E
2 “Resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty”, contrary to
F F
section 63 of the Police Force Ordinance, Cap. 232. Particulars of offence
G stated that on the same day, in the vicinity of Lyndhurst Terrace and G
Cochrane Street, Central, he resisted Sergeant 3269, a police officer acting
H H
in the execution of his duty.
I I
Facts
J J
K 2. The facts of the case as admitted by D reveal that at about 3 K
am on 30 September 2023, KANG, a South Korean, had been drinking with
L L
friends in a bar in Lan Kwai Fong area. Shortly before 4:10 am he was
M feeling intoxicated and left the bar by himself as he wanted to look for a M
taxi to take him home. He was wearing a silver Rolex Submariner wrist
N N
watch (the watch) valued at about HK$88,000 on his left hand.
O O
3. Shortly afterwards when walking along Pottinger Street,
P P
KANG tripped and fell to the ground. An unknown black female with Afro
Q hairstyle approached to help him up. At almost the same time, D Q
approached KANG from behind, grabbed KANG’s left hand and attempted
R R
to remove the watch from KANG’s wrist. KANG tried to swing away D’s
S hands but was unable to do so. There was a struggle between D and KANG S
when the latter tried to stop D from removing his watch. About a minute
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
later, 2 more black males joined D. They surrounded and tailed KANG,
C moving slowly down Pottinger Street towards Lyndhurst Terrace. C
D D
4. When the group reached the junction with Lok Hing Lane D
E succeeded in removing the watch from KANG’s wrist. D handed it to one E
of the 2 black males mentioned above. D, the black female and the other 2
F F
black males then dispersed in different directions.
G G
5. The above incident was witnessed by a group of plainclothes
H H
police officers who were on duty nearby. Sergeant 3269 was the first
I officer to reach the scene. He chased after D along Lyndhurst Terrace I
towards Cochrane Street, shouting in English “Police” and “Stop”. D
J J
ignored the warning and continued to run away.
K K
6. D was finally caught up by the Sergeant at outside 37
L L
Cochrane Street. When the Sergeant tried to apprehend D, he revealed his
M identity and continued to warn D in English not to resist, but D kept M
struggling, using strong force to push away the Sergeant to try to get free.
N N
Finally, another officer of the team joined in and subdued D. D said at one
O stage in English that he had no idea what had happened. O
P P
7. During a subsequent video recorded interview in the police
Q station under caution, D denied robbing KANG and said he tried to run Q
away as he did not know he was being chased after by the police.
R R
S 8. D now admits he participated in a joint enterprise with the S
other 2 unknown African males and another female to rob KANG of his
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
watch, and that he had used force to struggle and push away the officer
C trying to arrest him, knowing the latter was a police officer. C
D D
Defendant’s Backgrounds and Mitigation
E E
9. D is 33 years old, born in Tanzania on 9 August 1992. He
F F
arrived in Hong Kong as a visitor from Guangzhou on 9 September 2023
G and was allowed to stay for 3 months. At the time of the offences he was G
residing in Chung King Mansion in Tsim Sha Tsui. He had no criminal
H H
record in Hong Kong.
I I
10. Mr Hingorani representing D submitted in mitigation that D
J J
was the third among 5 siblings in the family. His father passed away in
K 2006. His mother, living in Tanzania, is of poor health, suffering from K
chronic illness and relies heavily on D for medication, care and emotional
L L
support, as the other sibling were, for various reasons, unable to do so. D
M was the only sibling who had attained tertiary education, but yet to secure M
a formal employment. He came to Hong Kong following advice from a
N N
close friend of job opportunities here.
O O
11. Mr Hingorani submitted that D suffered severe adversity from
P P
an early age. The offences stemmed from overwhelming personal and
Q economic hardship, and an urgent need to protect and support his fragile Q
family, rather than criminal inclination. D has no prior criminal record.
R R
S 12. On the issue of proper starting point, Mr Hingorani submitted S
that the appropriate starting point for this case should be “something less
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
than 4 years”, citing The Queen v Yau Kwok Tung1, HKSAR v Ting Chiu
C & Another2, HKSAR v Lam Ka Hung3, HKSAR v Chan Sin Leung4, and C
5
HKSAR v Ku Kwok Wai in support.
D D
E 13. As to discount for plea, Mr Hingorani submitted that D had E
spent a considerable time in custody and was acting on legal advice when
F F
he maintained his not guilty pleas, and that the case has not reached the
G trial proper. He submitted that D ought to be given 25% discount, citing a G
passage in Ting Chiu in support.
H H
I Sentence I
J J
14. The maximum sentence for Charge 1 is life imprisonment and
K 6 months imprisonment and a fine of $5,000 for Charge 2. K
L L
15. In Mo Kwong Sang v R, the CA laid down the guideline that
M the usual starting point for robbery with weapon displayed by a single M
robber is 5 years imprisonment6. In Yau Kwok Tung, the CA stated that a
N N
sentence of 4 years imprisonment is at the top end of the tariff for robberies
O where weapons are not displayed 7. In Ting Chiu, the CA also stated that O
P P
1
[1987] HKLR 782
Q Q
2
[2003] 3 HKLRD 378
3
R unrep., CACC 294/2003, 29 January 2004 R
4
unrep., CACC 48/2006, 11 August 2006
S 5 S
[2012] 4 HKLRD 563
6
Mo Kwong Sang v R [1981] HKLR 610
T T
7
supra, at 783I
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B B
sentence for an unarmed robbery should as a matter of principle be lower
C than that for an armed robbery of the kind envisaged in Mo Kwong Sang. C
D D
16. In the present case the robbery was committed by at least 4
E culprits, including D, acting in concert. It occurred in the early hours in a E
public place.
F F
G 17. I do not consider the fact that the victim was heavily under the G
influence of alcohol and thus was not fully aware of what was happening
H H
amounts to a valid mitigating factor, as such a person deserves protection
I as much as a person in sober state in a public place. Given the seriousness I
of the offence, the personal backgrounds of D and his reasons for the
J J
commission of the offences carry little weight. The lack of previous
K criminal conviction in Hong Kong is not a mitigating factor either, as D K
was only a visitor here on short duration. In any event it could only be
L L
regarded as no aggravating factor on this issue. However, I do accept that
M no weapon had been used in this case, the force used on the victim was not M
great and there is no evidence that he had suffered any injury during the
N N
incident.
O O
18. Having taken all relevant matters into consideration, I adopt
P P
45 months as the starting point for Charge 1.
Q Q
19. For Charge 2, D was fully aware that he was to be arrested by
R R
the Sergeant for the robbery he had just committed, yet he put up struggles
S and used strong force to push the officer away in trying to escape from S
lawful arrest, only to be subdued when another officer arrived in time to
T T
provide support to the Sergeant.
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
C 20. I do accept that there is no evidence that either of the 2 officers C
involved in subduing D had suffered any physical injury.
D D
E 21. For Charge 2, I adopt 2 months as the starting point. E
F F
22. In HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam8, the CA laid down discounts to
G be given when a defendant entered guilty plea at various stages of a G
criminal trial: 20% discount on the first day of trial and less than 20%
H H
during the trial (after the first day of trial).
I I
23. This case was first called upon in the District Court on 28
J J
February 2024. On 24 September 2024, D indicated not guilty pleas before
K the Listing Judge and the case was set down for trial on 16 June 2025 with K
2 days reserved. D still maintained his not guilty pleas through his Counsel
L L
on the first day of trial, but changed his mind to guilty pleas on the second
M day only. However, I accept that due to reasons beyond D’s control, no M
formal pleas had been taken from him on the first day. I am prepared to
N N
accept that he entered his guilty pleas on the first day of trial. Therefore, D
O is entitled to about 20% discount for his guilty pleas. O
P P
24. The 2 offences are separate and distinct, the sentences should
Q be served consecutively. Q
R R
25. D is therefore sentenced as follows:
S Charge 1: 36 months S
T T
8
[2016] 5 HKLRD 1
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
Charge 2: 1 month and 2 weeks, consecutive to Charge 1
C Total sentence: 37 months and 2 weeks. C
D D
E E
F ( Bernard Chung ) F
Deputy District Judge
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V