Chung Kwok-keung and Another v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 190/1976 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The first appellant was found guilty of one count of robbery and one count of theft. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for the robbery and six months' imprisonment for the theft; the sentences to be served concurrently.
|
CACC000190/1976
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A. Date of Judgment: 14th May, 1976. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The first appellant was found guilty of one count of robbery and one count of theft. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for the robbery and six months' imprisonment for the theft; the sentences to be served concurrently. 2. The second appellant was found guilty of one offence of robbery and was sentenced to four years and three months' imprisonment. 3. Both appellants appeal against their conviction and sentence. 4. The robbery in which the two appellants were concerned can be described as "an ordinary staircase robbery". It is enough to say that there was ample evidence on which to found a conviction and the appeals against conviction are dismissed. 5. The first appellant's appeal against conviction on the theft charge is also dismissed. 6. The first appellant was aged 16 at the time of the offence. He had four previous convictions. The first two when he was aged 11. In all, he has been convicted of three separate robberies. This appellant has two elder brothers, both of whom have been sentenced to custodial sentences. The probation officer's report was not favourable to him and he appears not to realize the seriousness of what he has done. 7. We think that in view of the age and background of the first appellant, the sentence of three years is excessive. Though the probation report states that he is fit for a detention centre, that course is not advised. However, he is also said to be fit for detention in a training centre and we think that the proper course to take in this case is to allow the appeal of the first appellant to the extent that an order for his detention in a training centre will be substituted for the sentences passed for each of the two offences. 8. The second appellant was aged 18 at the time of the offence. He had two previous convictions, one of which was for robbery for which he was sent to a detention centre. 9. Again, we think that the sentence of four years and three months' imprisonment is excessive. It is not in line with sentences passed on other offenders in similar cases. We therefore substitute a sentence of three years' imprisonment for the sentence passed on the appellant in the court below.
Representation: Appellants in person. Reid for crown. |