HKSAR v. Chiu Tak Ming

CACC000018/2000

CACC 18/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCC NO. 322 OF 1999)

Coram: Mayo VP, Ribeiro and Wong JJA in Court

Date of Hearing: 19 April 2000

Date of Judgment: 19 April 2000

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Wong JA:

1. The applicant pleaded guilty before a magistrate to four charges of robbery and he was transferred to the Court of First Instance of the High Court for sentence. On 22 December 1999 he appeared before Deputy Judge Wesley Wong when the judge sentenced him to 8 years' imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground that it is too severe. He also told us this morning that he committed these offences because of financial hardship and he tendered his apologies to the victims.

2. All the offences were committed in the lift lobby of the buildings in the same housing estate in Ngau Tau Kok on four different occasions between April and June 1999. With the exception of the 4th charge which took place at about 9 o'clock at night, the other charges took place in broad daylight. All these victims were women. On each occasion, the applicant waylaid his victim, grabbed her hair, threatened her with a knife or a paper cutter before removing valuables from her. When the police intercepted him at the scene near the robbery in same housing estate shortly after 4 p.m. on 1 June 1999, which was the date and time the offence in the first charge was committed, a silver coloured paper cutter was found on him and he also admitted the commission of the offences under caution.

3. The judge approached sentencing in this way. He said :

"And for all these factors, I will give you a full discount. As for the starting point in respect of the 1st charge, I'll adopt a starting point of 5 years, and for the second offence, 7 years. The third offence, 7 years and the 4th charge, 7 years. And taking into consideration the totality principle I adopt a starting point of 12 years. I'll give you one third reduction. I sentence you to 8 years."

4. In our view, the starting point of 12 years is far too high and exceeds the level of sentences based on the number of aggravating factors as suggested in R v Mo Kwong-sang [1981] HKLR 610. In the circumstances of the present case we feel that a starting point of 9 years would be appropriate. Allowing a discount of one third for the guilty pleas, the sentence imposed on the applicant should have been one of 6 years, the appeal therefore succeeds.

5. Accordingly, we grant leave and treating the application as the hearing of the appeal, we allow the appeal and reduce the sentence of 8 years to 6 years. The sentences on the individual charges will be adjusted on the basis of a starting point of 9 years instead of 12 years.

Representation:

Ms Vinsome Chan, S.G.C. for DPP

Applicant in person