A A
B DCCC 704/2008 B
C C
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION D
E Criminal Case No. 704 of 2008 E
_____________________________________________
F F
HKSAR
G G
and
H H
LEUNG Wai-hung (Defendant)
I ______________________________________________ I
J J
Coram : HHJ Yau in Court
K Dates of Hearing : 3 March 2009 K
Date of Sentence : 18 March 2009
L
Charge : Robbery (搶劫) L
M M
____________________________________________
N N
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
O O
_________________________________________
P P
Q The defendant faces 2 charges. Charge 1 is robbery, contrary to section Q
10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210 and Charge 2 is possession of offensive
R R
weapons in a public place, contrary to section 33(1) of the Public Order
S
Ordinance, Cap 245. The particulars of the charges are fully set out in the S
charge sheet and the court does not intend to repeat them here now. The
T T
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B defendant pleads guilty to Charge 1. Charge 2 is left on court file and is not to B
be activated without the consent of this court or the Court of Appeal.
C C
D Facts Admitted D
2. According to the facts admitted by the defendant he was an off-duty
E E
police constable at the time of the offence, having joined the police force in
F 1983. F
G G
3. At about 1108 hours on 9.7.2008 victim of Charge 1 was on her way
home at Greenland Garden in Tuen Mun. The defendant suddenly appeared
H H
and snatched her handbag containing Rminbi Y10,000, HK$389.80 and items
I particularised in the charge. The victim lost balance and fell on the ground. I
The defendant pulled off the strap of the victim’s handbag and kicked her legs
J J
and hit her head with the handbag for 3 times. The defendant ran away.
K K
4. A passer-by caught the defendant and subdued him after a struggle,
L L
during which a cap, a wig and a facial mask worn by the defendant fell on the
M ground. The victim recovered her bag at the scene. M
N N
5. The defendant was arrested and he remained silent under caution.
O O
Criminal Record
P P
6. The defendant has a clear record.
Q Q
Background Report
R R
7. According to the background report the defendant is aged 44 and is
S
married with 2 daughters aged 8 and 13. His wife is a kindergarten teacher. S
T T
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B 8. The defendant was brought up in a police family. His father is a B
retired police officer while his 2 brothers are respectively a former and a serving
C C
police officer. The background report is wrong in saying that the defendant
D joined the police force in October 1998 after completing Form 5 education. D
According to the defence counsel the year should be 1983. The defendant had
E E
satisfactory performance in his job and became a senior constable in 2001. He
F
was awarded the police long service medal in the same year. F
G 9. The defendant borrowed money from financial institutions in 2003 G
and 2004 to help footing the legal expenses involved in the appeal of his brother
H H
who had been sentenced to 6 years imprisonment for offences of robbery and
I kidnapping. Due to financial constraints and worries about his promotion in the I
police force he became addicted to gambling, resulting in huge credit card and
J J
financial institution debts. Although his wife and family members had helped
K him clear the debts in 2006 he continued to gamble and accumulated new debts K
amounting to $400,000. To avoid debt collectors to cause nuisance to his wife
L L
at her place of work the defendant committed the offence in the hope to obtain
M some money to settle the debts. According to the probation officer compiling M
the report, the defendant shows regret for what he had done.
N N
O 10. The probation officer says that the wife is emotionally upset for what O
the defendant had done which would also affect the children. She would move
P P
out with the children to live at her mother’s place.
Q Q
Mitigation
R 11. Counsel representing the defendant points out in mitigation that the R
defendant has a good record of service in the police force. He suffers from
S S
hypertension and needs to take daily medication. Because of the offence the
T T
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B family will have move out of the police quarters and the defendant will stand B
losing all the retirement benefits of over $600,00 lump sum and pension.
C C
D 12. Counsel stresses that the offence started with snatching and was not a D
planned robbery. The defendant committed it because of financial difficulties.
E E
F
13. Counsel submits to court letters of mitigation of the defendant, his F
wife, his daughters, his younger brother and a friend. The defendant explains in
G the letter how he ran into debts and became worried about his job promotion. G
He feels ashamed to have become a criminal and is remorseful and sorry for his
H H
family. He is determined to mend his way.
I I
14. The wife describes the defendant as a good husband and father and
J J
explains that the defendant had only developed the gambling habit as a result of
K the tremendous stress the defendant was under because of financial problems K
and worries about his career prospects. The defendant and the whole family
L L
suffer because of the present case.
M M
15. The daughters say that the defendant loves them and they miss him.
N N
O 16. The younger brother who is a serving police officer says that the O
defendant committed the offence out of a momentary impulse and is now
P P
remorseful. He stands to lose everything because of the offence.
Q Q
17. The friend says that the defendant is a kind and good father and the
R offence is out of his character. The defendant felt upset because of the nuisance R
caused to his wife and family by the debt collectors and this had prompted him
S S
to commit the offence.
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B 18. All the authors of the letters are of the view that the defendant is now B
remorseful. They all ask the court to treat the defendant leniently.
C C
D 19. Counsel reiterates the reasons of the defendant offending the law D
which are similar to those set out in the background report. He also cites the
E E
authority of Mo Kwong Sang v R [1981] HKLR 610 but emphasises that the
F
robbery in the present case took place in daylight time, a one-man job and no F
weapon was used.
G G
Sentence
H H
20. It is extremely sad to see a police officer who has a good record of
I service to fall from grace in such a manner. What he has done has not only I
brought disgrace to himself and his family but has also brought the police force
J J
into disrepute.
K K
21. The defendant is aged 44 and has served in the police force for more
L L
than 24 years. He has a happy family with 2 daughters whom he loves and who
M love him. It is not difficult to see the disastrous consequences to the defendant M
and his family brought about by the present case. However, as a police officer
N N
the defendant should know very well that such consequences are the inevitable
O result of offending the law. He should be prepared to accept them before he O
decided to embark on his sinister plot.
P P
Q
22. The court accepts that the defendant committed the offence due to Q
financial pressure and that it was not a planned robbery but a case of snatching
R which went wrong. Financial problems of course can never constitute an R
excuse to offend the law. In the present case the defendant had no doubt
S S
thought the matter over and made some planning before making the move. He
T disguised himself by wearing a facial mask as well as a wig and a cap. T
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B Obviously he was trying to hide his identity. If he had managed to get away the B
chances of the police being able to catch him would have been extremely
C C
remote. This adds gravity to the case.
D D
23. The court bears in mind that the defendant will stand to lose his job
E E
and retirement benefits. Although the decided cases are somewhat divided as to
F
how much weight this carries in terms of mitigation there are ample authorities F
saying that in an offence of a serious nature like the present one it does not carry
G too much weight. This court will nevertheless take such loss into consideration G
and give the defendant appropriate discount.
H H
I 24. Robbery is a serious offence. It is no doubt an aggravating factor I
when it is committed by a police officer who is supposed to be the defender of
J J
the law and the protector of the lives and properties of citizens. Fortunately in
K the present case the victim, as pointed by the defence counsel in mitigation, did K
not suffer any serious injuries. There was also no loss of properties or money.
L L
M 25. Having considered the whole circumstances including all the M
mitigations ably put forward by the defence counsel the court adopts a starting
N N
point of 3½ years imprisonment. Giving credit for the guilty plea of the
O defendant the court sentences him to 2 years 4 months imprisonment. O
P P
Q Q
Signed
R (Joseph Yau) R
Judge of the District Court
S S
Mr Peter Cahill, Counsel on Fiat, for the Prosecution
T T
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B Mr David Boyton, instructed by Messrs S Y Chu & Co Solicitors for the B
Defence
C C
D D
E E
F F
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