Read the full judgment text of CACC 139/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 20 February 2019 before McWalters JA and Zervos JA.
Criminal law – robbery – sentencing – appeal against sentence – Form 8 recognizance holder enhancement – manifestly excessive – two South Asian male assailants with knives attacked money exchange shop proprietor from behind as he locked up – victim suffered near-amputation of right wrist, deep chop wounds to both calves, and laceration on back – rucksack containing $350,000 cash never recovered – applicant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery, remaining counts left on file – whether the 2-year enhancement for Form 8 recognizance holder status adopted by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive – Held: no – Court of Appeal has declined to lay down fixed guidelines for Form 8 enhancements, leaving the amount to the sentencing judge's discretion – enhancement must mark meaningfully the defendant's betrayal of the trust placed in him by the people of Hong Kong and deter Form 8 holders from committing serious crimes – generally should not be less than 6 months for serious offences but no fixed upper limit other than proportionality and totality – consistency of approach rather than consistency of outcome is required – the pre-planned, vicious, cold-blooded nature of the robbery, the severity of the victim's near-fatal injuries, the impact on community sense of security, and reputational damage to Hong Kong as a safe international business centre justified the 2-year enhancement – observation that the violence constituted wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm under section 17 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance Cap 212 and should ordinarily have attracted a separate consecutive charge – final sentence of 13 years and 3 months' imprisonment upheld – leave to appeal refused and appeal dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether 2-year enhancement for Form 8 recognizance holder status was manifestly excessive
Outcome: Leave to appeal against sentence refused; appeal dismissed.
Cited by 18 cases · Cites 8 cases