Read the full judgment text of CAAR 000022/1987 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 20 January 1988 before Yang, V.-P., Barker, J.A. & Bewley, J..
Criminal law – wounding with intent – sentencing – probation order – review – public interest – deterrence – driver of vehicle – equal culpability – mitigating factors – Offences Against the Person Ordinance s.17 – The respondent was the driver of a car used in a gang attack with melon knives causing serious injuries to three victims. He pleaded guilty and was placed on probation for two years. The Attorney General sought review. The Court of Appeal held the probation order was wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate. Applying the principle from R. v. Brett, no distinction should be drawn between those who used violence and the driver, as all are equally guilty. Mitigating circumstances such as remorse, cooperation, clear record, and family support were outweighed by the public interest in deterrent sentences for such violent crimes. The proper sentence was three years' imprisonment concurrent, but on review a discount was given resulting in two years' imprisonment on each count concurrent.
Legal issues: Whether probation order was wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate
Outcome: Application allowed; probation order set aside; sentence reviewed to two years' imprisonment on each count concurrent.
Cited by 1 case