Read the full judgment text of CACC 000018/1994 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 16 March 1995 before Macdougall VP, Penlington JA, Liu JA.
Criminal law – sentencing – armed robbery – jewellery shop robberies – discount for guilty plea and assistance to police – 'supergrass' category – Court of Appeal – multiple applicants. The four applicants, Chan Man-chi, Chan Kin-chung, Choy Sze-man and Ho Shu-wing, applied for leave to appeal against sentences imposed by Leong, J. for a series of armed robberies, mainly of jewellery shops, committed between 1986 and 1991, all connected to the ringleader Ho Tung-shing. The robberies involved the use of pistol-like objects and genuine firearms, the taking of vast quantities of jewellery and cash, the killing of one man, the infliction of paraplegia on a passer-by, and serious wounding of another. Held, dismissing or allowing each application as follows. Whether Chan Man-chi fell within the 'supergrass' category and was entitled to a two-thirds reduction on the starting point: yes; under R. v. Chan Fu-kui [1986] HKLR 967, an applicant who surrenders when not under immediate pressure, gives information enabling the apprehension of an extremely dangerous gang, and does so at considerable personal risk to himself and family, falls clearly within the 'supergrass' category and is entitled to a two-thirds reduction; sentence reduced from 12 to 8 years concurrent. Whether Chan Kin-chung received an adequate discount for his early guilty plea and assistance: no; starting point of 28 years was correct given the killing, the paraplegia, and the vast unrecovered property, but the approximately 30% discount was insufficient given his early plea, valuable information, and actual giving of evidence in a trial that led to conviction and induced guilty pleas from others; sentences on counts 2, 3 and 5-14 reduced from 20 to 15 years. Whether Choy Sze-man received an adequate discount, particularly for actually giving evidence for the Crown: no; starting point of 24 years was correct, but a 33% discount was appropriate only for a plea of guilty plus cooperation and did not recognise that A3 had actually given evidence, which required a greater discount; sentences on each count reduced from 16 to 12 years concurrent. Whether Ho Shu-wing received an adequate discount: no; the starting point of 24 years and the 33% discount were correct, and the application was refused. Whether the forfeiture order made against Chan Kin-chung by written order rather than in open court was valid: not decided, the correct procedure being to apply to the trial judge to revoke the order. Sentencing math: Chan Man-chi – starting point 24 years, two-thirds discount to 8 years concurrent; Chan Kin-chung – starting point 28 years for robbery counts, increased discount to 15 years; Choy Sze-man – starting point 24 years, increased discount to 12 years concurrent; Ho Shu-wing – starting points 15, 19, 24, 24 years reduced to 10, 13, 16, 16 years concurrent, application refused.
Legal issues: Whether Chan Man-chi fell within the 'supergrass' category and was entitled to a two-thirds reduction · Whether Chan Kin-chung received an adequate discount for his guilty plea and assistance to police · Whether Choy Sze-man received an adequate discount, particularly for actually giving evidence for the Crown · Whether Ho Shu-wing received an adequate discount for his guilty plea and cooperation · Validity of the forfeiture order made against Chan Kin-chung
Outcome: Applications for leave to appeal allowed in part. Chan Man-chi's sentence reduced from 12 years to 8 years concurrent on each count. Chan Kin-chung's sentences on counts 2, 3 and 5-14 reduced from 20 to 15 years. Choy Sze-man's sentences on each count reduced from 16 to 12 years concurrent. Ho Shu-wing's application refused. Forfeiture order issue not decided.