DCCC496/2025

DCCC496/2025

DCCC496/2025 HKSAR v.RAI BIJAYA DCCC 496/2025 [2026] HKDC 556 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 496 OF 2025 ________________________ HKSAR v RAI BIJAYA ________________________ Before: Deputy District Judge Edward Wong in Court Date: 24 March 2026 Present: Ms CHUNG Wing Sze, Natalie, Public Prosecutor, for HKSAR Ms BU Yanan, instructed by Litterwoods, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant Offence: Robbery（搶劫罪） ________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ A. Charge, facts 1. Defendant (D) pleaded guilty to 1 charge of robbery, contrary to section 10(1) and (2) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. The particulars are that on 7 December 2024[1], at the lift lobby, ground floor, Kam Po Building, Nos. 67-77 Woosung Street, Yau Ma Tei, D robbed THAPA Ganga Maya (Pw1) of one earring (“the Earring”). 2. D admitted the following facts. On Charge date at around 1728, he appeared in the back alley of Kam Po Building. At around 1730, Pw1, a 67-year-old resident of Charge address, was waiting there. D suddenly appeared from behind and grabbed Pw1’s left ear to take off the Earring worth $5,000. Pw1’s left ear was scratched and bleeding as a result. The incident lasted a few seconds. 3. At around 1731, D pawned the Earring at Tak Sang Pawn Shop (“the Shop”) on ground floor, 178 Shanghai Street, Yau Ma Tei. 4. On 9 December at around 1845, D was intercepted by the police and admitted that he had snatched a woman’s earring. D was arrested for snatching and admitted under caution that he had stolen the Earring. $250 was seized from D. 5. In a cautioned video-recorded interview, D admitted, inter alia, the followings: (a) In the evening of Charge date, he was on his way to buy tobacco, saw Pw1, followed her into Kam Po Building, pulled the Earring from her left ear, and fled. D did so because he had no money. (b) D pawned the Earring to the Shop on the same day and received $2,200. He spent the money on food, medical expenses, and debts repayment. The balance of $250 was seized by the police. B. Criminal record 6. D has the following previous convictions: DCCC 241/2018 Robbery 24 months Robbery 24 months (8 months consecutive) DCCC 549/2020 Robbery 34 months 7. He also snatched earrings in these cases. In DCCC 549/2020, D covered the 69-year-old victim’s mouth from behind and snatched her earrings valued $16,000 within 5 months after he had been released from imprisonment for DCCC 241/2018. 8. In DCCC 241/2018, 36 months were adopted as the starting points; in DCCC 549/2020, 48 months were adopted and enhanced by 3 months due to previous similar convictions. C. Mitigation 9. D is aged 46 and married. He has two sons with his ex-wife.He migrated to Hong Kong in 1999. 10. In 2023, while working as a construction worker, D had an accident and injured his back. He had been on sick leave since then and had no income. He has therefore had trouble with household expenses and financially relied on his sons. 11. Defence cited Queen v Yau Kwok-Tung[1987] HKLR 782 where the court held ‘A sentence of four years, in the circumstances of this case, is at the top end of the tariff for robberies where weapons are not displayed.’[2] See also HKSAR v Chui Chi Hung CACC 334/2006. 12. Defence submitted that in the instant case, D acted alone for only a few seconds, without premeditation, sophistication, intimidation, sustained force, or physical struggle with Pw1 who did not suffer serious injury; thus, this case falls at the lower end of seriousness. 13. Defence also submitted that this case is less serious than DCCC 549/2020 because the present case was not committed within months after release from imprisonment and the property value is also lower. 14. Defence further submitted that the following robbery cases are more serious than the present one: (a) In HKSAR v Lam Ka Hung CACC 294/2003, the applicant pressed down a 57-year-old female victim who struggled, causing both of them to fall. The victim sustained minor abrasion to a finger. A starting point of 4 years was upheld. (b) In HKSAR v Chan Sin Leung CACC 48/2006, the applicant repeatedly pulled the female victim’s necklace, causing pain and red marks. The Court of Appeal held that a starting point of 3 years was not manifestly excessive. (c) In HKSAR v Ku Kwok Wai [2012] 4 HKLRD 563, during small hours, one defendant acted as a lookout, while the other entered a building lobby, pushed the victim at the back, and snatched her phone. The Court of Appeal held that a starting point of 3 years and 3 months was appropriate. (d) In HKSAR v Huang Weidong[2025] HKDC 2106, the defendant, with 2 previous theft convictions, pulled and snatched the victim’s handbag, causing the latter to fall. A starting point of 4 years was adopted. D. Consideration 15. I disagree with the Defence that the present case is less serious than DCCC 549/2020 because: (a) the difference in property value is insignificant; and (b) the fact that D committed DCCC 549/2020 within 5 months after release from imprisonment for DCCC 241/2018 was regarded as an aggravating factor for enhancement rather than a factor that rendered the facts of the case more serious.[3] 16. However, DCCC 549/2020 is not binding and I am of the view that the starting point adopted therein may be on the high side for these reasons: (a) Yau Kwok-Tung held that 4 years after trial is ‘at the top end of the tariff for robberies where weapons are not displayed’. The facts of DCCC 549/2020 may not be the most serious where no weapon was used that justify the maximum 4 years starting point. (b) 36 months were adopted as the starting points in DCCC 241/2018 where the modus operandi was similar; in other words, the 48 months starting point adopted in DCCC 549/2020 was a 1/3 increase which arguably may also not be justified, especially when repeated offending was separately accounted for by a 3 months enhancement. (c) Chan Sin Leung and Ku Kwok Wai, both binding on this court, are no less serious than DCCC 549/2020, but the respective lower starting points of (i) 3 years and (ii) 3 years 3 months were upheld by the Court of Appeal. 17. Regarding Chan Sin Leung, I do not agree with the Defence that it is more serious than the present case which similarly involves the application of force to a female victim in snatching item that she was wearing, causing injuries. 18. Nonetheless, I agree that Ku Kwok Wai is more serious because it involved aggravating features not present in the instant case, namely 2 defendants acting together during small hours, one of which pushed the victim and snatched her iPhone which was valuable. E. Sentence 19. Having carefully considered all the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 3 years (36 months). 20. D is a repeated offender, thus the sentence is enhanced by 3 months to 39 months. 21. After allowing a one-third reduction for the guilty plea, the only mitigating factor, D is sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment. ( Edward Wong ) Deputy District Judge [1] Same hereinafter. [2] Para. 10. [3] Para. 8, 20.