HKSAR v. HAFEEZ MUHAMMAD

DCCC 610/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 610 OF 2015

———————-

HKSAR
v
Hafeez Muhammad

———————-

Before: HH Judge Casewell

Date: 20 October 2015 at 3.05 pm

Present: Mr Francis Haddon-Cave, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Edward F Le B Laskey, instructed by Massie &
Clement, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
defendant

Offence: Robbery (搶劫罪)

———————

Reasons for Sentence

———————

1. The defendant has been convicted of robbery after trial.

2. I do not propose to go through the details of that again, as reference can be made to my verdict.

3. The substance of the offence arises out of the admission of the defendant, which is that a person was struck and his bag was stolen(the victim himself did not give evidence), that the defendant made off with the bag and apparently received a reward of about $100for doing so.

4. What can be said about the robbery was that it was in a public location, Chungking Mansions, and appears to involve a number ofpeople acting together to commit the robbery.

5. As far as the defendant’s antecedents are concerned, he is aged 38. He is described as being on a recognizance, which would supportthe position of him being a claimant, a torture claimant. Necessarily, because of his status in Hong Kong, he would be unemployedand he is recorded as being unemployed. He has been residing in a location in Cheung Sha Wan in Kowloon.

6. The defendant has a number of previous convictions, four appearances in court totally, with a total of six previous records. Hehas in the past in 2008 and 2010 received a suspended sentence in 2008 and an actual prison sentence in 2010 for passing and tenderingcounterfeits of currency notes. He has received sentences of imprisonment in 2010 and 2013 for possession of a dangerous drug andreleased from detention on 18 October 2013.

7. So the defendant has a record of drug-taking and petty crime, but no similar convictions, although I suppose one could say passingcounterfeit currency is an offence of dishonesty.

8. This can be classified as an unarmed robbery, which involved the use of an assault. It has been said that a sentence of 4 years’imprisonment is the upper limit for an offence involving unarmed robbery and that must, of course, take into account the most seriousof its kind of unarmed robbery.

9. Although this involves a number of men acting together, it does not appear to me that this offence of itself falls into the mostserious category of unarmed robbery.

10. Nevertheless, robbery is a serious offence and the court must reflect that in the sentence it passes.

11. What I should do in respect of this offence is pass a

sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment.

(T Casewell)
District Judge