Read the full judgment text of CACC 000144/1992 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 30 October 1992 before Power JA, Bewley J, Ryan J.
Criminal law – sentencing – disparity of sentence – conspiracy to rob – appeal against sentence – leave to appeal – whether an offender who received a proper sentence may legitimately claim a sense of grievance on appeal where a more culpable co-defendant sentenced at the same time received a higher but lenient sentence – three Chinese illegal immigrants recruited to commit a planned robbery in Hong Kong – applicants travelled in a van containing a knife, three pick axe handles, white gloves and electrical wire – an imitation firearm located in the surrounding area and a sketch plan of the proposed robbery scene later found – applicants apprehended by police at about 2:05 a.m. on 13 January 1991 in Tin Ha Road, Yuen Long, on the way to Jardine's Lookout to commit the robbery – trial judge described the planned offence as a serious robbery committed in the early hours, with the victim envisaged to be tied up and weapons including knives, imitation firearms and pick axe handles, with the implements pointing more strongly to a robbery within premises than outside – fourth defendant had recruited the applicants in China, arranged their entry to Hong Kong, concealed them after arrival, planned the robbery, drew the sketch plan, and provided the implements, and accordingly played a substantially more culpable role – fourth defendant pleaded guilty only on the second day of trial after being confronted with the applicants' statements – applicants pleaded guilty to conspiracy to rob and the Crown offered no evidence on a second count of possession of an imitation firearm with intent – applicants each sentenced to four years' imprisonment, fourth defendant sentenced to five years – whether the applicants could rely on the disparity principle in Stroud [1977] 65 Cr.App.Rep. 150 to challenge the sentence disparity – held that the disparity argument only arises where the offender has received a more serious penalty than a more culpable co-defendant such that a real sense of grievance is engendered – the argument was never intended to reduce a proper sentence merely because a more culpable co-defendant was also treated leniently – applicants' sentences were proper, if anything lenient, and no legitimate sense of grievance arose – applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused – starting point: 8 years, 50% discount for guilty plea, cooperation and confessions, final sentence: 4 years' imprisonment each.
Legal issues: Disparity of sentence where more culpable co-defendant received a higher but lenient sentence
Outcome: Applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused; original sentences stand
Cited by 1 case