A HCCC139/2009 A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
B HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION B
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 139 OF 2009
C C
----------------------
D HKSAR D
v
E E
LIU YIFANG
ZHOU GUODONG
F F
LIU SHIKEN
LUO JIANQIANG
G G
----------------------
H Before: Hon McMahon J H
Date: 12 June 2009 at 10.38 am
I
Present: Ms Anna Lai, SPP of the Department of Justice, for I
HKSAR
Mr Jacky Jim Chun-kit, instructed by K F Chan & Co,
J assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st to J
4th Accused
Offence: Robbery (搶劫)
K K
---------------------------------
L Transcript of the Audio Recording L
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
M M
COURT: The four defendants pleaded guilty at Eastern Magistracy
to a joint offence of robbery, and were committed to this
N N
court for sentence pursuant to section 81B of the
Magistrates Ordinance.
O O
The facts of the offence were straightforward. The four
victims of the offence were playing mahjong in a store in
P On Hing Street, Yuen Long, a little after midnight in P
September of last year.
Q Q
The four defendants rushed in to the premises and declared
robbery. Two of them produced imitation pistols. The
R roller shutter of the shop was pulled down, and the four R
victims’ hands were tied with plastic tape.
S Items of personal property were taken from the victims, S
comprising watches, mobile phones, a pendant, a ring, a
T
necklace and cash totalling $10,700. T
The defendants then fled. The four victims were able to
U chase after the defendants and alerted passers-by, including U
CRT35/12.6.2009/KS 1 HCCC139/2009/Reasons for Sentence
V V
A an off-duty police constable, who were able to intercept and A
apprehend D1 and D2.
B The latter subsequently admitted his role in the offence, B
and, on the basis of his admissions, police went to premises
in Yuen Long for a home search the next day.
C C
At those premises were found D3 and D4, still in possession
D of some of the stolen property. They were arrested. D
Subsequently, each defendant admitted having come into Hong
E Kong from the mainland and committing the robbery with the E
others.
F F
I take into account this was a robbery in company involving
the production of imitation firearms, and the robbery
G involved the invasion of premises and the tying up of the G
victims.
H In my view, there is little to separate the role of each H
defendant. They robbed as a group, and each had their own
I
role to play. Each of them was no doubt aware imitation I
firearms would be produced, and I do not distinguish amongst
them on the basis of which of them actually held the
J imitation weapons. J
The robbery was not conducted with the ferocity sometimes
K seen when a gang invades private or commercial premises. In K
this case, none of the victims were injured. They were
L lightly bound, and hence their ability to give chase to the L
robbers, and the mobile phone of one was returned when she
said she needed to have access to telephone numbers recorded
M in it. M
For those reasons, I take a slightly lower starting point of
N sentence than I otherwise would have done, and I take, in N
respect of each defendant, a starting point of 10 years’
O imprisonment. O
Their family and economic circumstances, as outlined to me,
P are not unusual; nor is the 2nd defendant’s co-operation P
with the police a cause for a further reduction in sentence.
The discount he receives for his plea, in my view, in the
Q Q
circumstances of this case, encapsulates that.
R Accordingly, the only mitigation available for each R
defendant is his plea of guilty, and full credit is given
for that.
S S
T T
U U
CRT35/12.6.2009/KS 2 HCCC139/2009/Reasons for Sentence
V V
A Each defendant is sentenced to 6 years 8 months’ A
imprisonment.
B B
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
CRT35/12.6.2009/KS 3 HCCC139/2009/Reasons for Sentence
V V