Read the full judgment text of CAAR 000001/2000 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 25 May 2000 before Stuart-Moore VP, Mayo VP and Wong JA.
Criminal law – robbery – 'head bashing' robbery – sentencing – review of sentence – Training Centre order – Mo Kwong-sang guidelines – aggravating factors – whether the respondent hit the victim twice on the head with a large stone in a public toilet and snatched a gold ring, causing multiple lacerations and six days of sick leave – whether the offender was a 19-year-old heroin addict with five minor previous convictions – whether the Mo Kwong-sang (1981) HKLR 610 guidelines for armed robbery should be revised upward in light of the rise in 'head bashing' robberies – First issue: held, no general upward revision of Mo Kwong-sang tariffs is required as the guidelines already permit upward adjustment for aggravating factors, of which a deliberate blow to the head with a weapon capable of causing brain injury is one – Second issue: held, a new guideline is established for 'head bashing' robberies, with the usual sentence after a contested trial not being less than eight years' imprisonment – Third issue: held, a Training Centre order for armed robbery is justifiable only in rare cases with a clear demonstration of reasons for departing from Mo Kwong-sang, as it does not provide adequate deterrent effect for grave offences – Fourth issue: held, the Training Centre order in the present case was wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate, as there were no special circumstances justifying departure from the Mo Kwong-sang guidelines – Application allowed; Training Centre order quashed; starting point of seven years' imprisonment reduced to four and a half years' imprisonment after adjustments for the guilty plea and the review of sentence; commendations ordered to be conveyed to two members of the public who assisted in apprehending the offender.
Legal issues: Whether the Mo Kwong-sang sentencing guidelines for armed robbery should be revised upward · Whether a new sentencing guideline should be set for 'head bashing' robberies · Whether a Training Centre order can ever be appropriate for armed robbery · Whether the sentence imposed in the present case was wrong in principle and/or manifestly inadequate
Outcome: Application for review allowed; Training Centre order quashed and substituted with a sentence of four and a half years' imprisonment.
Cited by 6 cases · Cites 1 case