The Queen v. Kwok Man-hung and Others

CACC000017/1983

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN

____________

Coram: McMullin, V.-P., Li & Silke, JJ.A.

Date : 5th May 1983

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Silke, J.A.:

1. We have before us four applicants who seek leave to appeal against sentences imposed on them on conviction after trial for robbery offences.

2. The 1st applicant and 1st defendant, Kwok, was convicted of two robberies and sentenced to a period of eight years' imprisonment on each concurrent - making a totality of eight.

3. The 2nd applicant and 2nd defendant, Man, was convicted of five counts of robbery and sentenced to a period of ten years' imprisonment concurrent on each - making a totality of ten.

4. The 3rd applicant and 3rd defendant, Lee, was convicted of three robberies and sentenced to a period of nine years' imprisonment on each concurrent - making a totality of nine.

5. The 4th applicant and 6th defendant, Chan, was convicted of five robberies and sentenced to a period of ten years' imprisonment concurrent on each - making a totality of ten.

6. Generally these robberies followed the same pattern. They concerned domestic premises. A group of men armed with knives invaded the premises, saw a tenant of one of the flats in it, forced that tenant to allow them to enter his own flat and the flat was then ransacked. The inhabitants were tied up with adhesive tape.

7. In two of the robberies, that is the first and the second counts, in the early hours of the morning mini-buses were stopped and the occupants of the buses robbed. Again, the participants in the robbery carried knives.

8. The last count, the tenth, was a return to the building in which the robbery in the nineth count took place. Two persons were injured. One man of 65 was punched and kicked and a second man who had managed to untie himself and make an attempt to escape was chased by one of the robbers - not one of the applicants before us - and wounded.

9. All the domestic premises robberies took place after midnight and some of them in early hours of the morning.

10. It would appear that a group of persons - all young in years - came together and went on a form of rampage, in the course of which they committed these very unpleasant robberies, that is highly unpleasant for the persons upon whom they were perpetrated.

11. In respect of the four applicants the main issue placed before us by Counsel is their age at the time of the offence and the quantum of the sentence imposed on persons of their age.

12. This Court had said before - in Ng Siu-fung and Chow Shu-kee v. The Queen⁽¹⁾ - that it is very conscious of the youth of offenders on counts of this nature and voiced its reluctance to condemn youths to long-term imprisonment.

13. The trial judge, before passing the sentences he did, very correctly called for and considered both probation and Correctional Services reports. He was addressed upon them by Counsel then appearing.

14. We also have had our attention directed to them and have given them earnest consideration, in particular the several reports from the Commissioner of Correctional Services.

15. In the case of each applicant there was a lack of parental supervision, a lack which regrettably is the tragic norm in many of the cases which come before this Court so frequently. Though we do understand that the circumstances of Hong Kong are not of necessity conducive to full parental supervision. It is often necessary for both parents to work in order to support the family.

16. But that having been said, members of the public are entitled to be protected from this type of depredation. These were serious robberies though not the worst of their kind. It is necessary to deter those so minded from entering at a youthful age into a course of criminal conduct. The resources of these Courts are limited in this respect for Detention Centre orders would be inappropriate in a case such as this.

17. We have given anxious consideration to the sentences passed on these young men who were in the 16-17-year-old bracket at the time of commission of the offences. We do not think however that it would be proper for us to interfere with them giving all the weight we can to the individual circumstances of the offenders.

18. The offences were multiple and deliberate - knives were carried. One of the applicants was convicted while on bail for these offences of yet another offence - possession of an offensive weapon.

19. We do not think that the sentences were either wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. The applications are therefore refused.

(1) Criminal Appeal No. 558 of 1982

Representation:

Peter Clayton, Esq. instructed by Messrs. Ip, Ku & Stoppa for the applicants MAN Wing-fai & LEE Siu-keung.

E. Chung, Esq. instructed by S.T. Poon & Co. for the applicants KWOK Man-hung & CHAN Wai-cheong.

B. de Speville, Esq. for Crown/Respondent.