Lam Pak Choi v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 231/1975 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. This Appellant and another man were charged together on two charges of robbery and this Appellant was further charged alone on two further charges of robbery. The Appellant was convicted on all four charges against him and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment consecutive on each of the four charges. He appeals against convictions and sentences.
|
CACC000231/1975 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 231 OF 1975 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins & McMullin, JJ. Date of Judgment: 4th June 1975. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins, J.: 1. This Appellant and another man were charged together on two charges of robbery and this Appellant was further charged alone on two further charges of robbery. The Appellant was convicted on all four charges against him and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment consecutive on each of the four charges. He appeals against convictions and sentences. 2. None of these robberies had been reported to the police, but the police received information as a result of which they questioned the two Accused. This Appellant was questioned about a specific robbery and he replied:
In the event the Appellant was not charged with the robbery about which the police had received information, but he was questioned about the four robberies which he admitted having committed and he gave particulars of each. It was those four robberies which constituted the subject matter of the charges laid. Three of the charges were in respect of robberies of unknown persons, but the police were able to trace the victim of the first charge. The victim was able to identify the other Accused but not this Appellant. However, he purported to identify a watch and a ball-pen which had been taken in the robbery which he described. Those items appear to have been of a common type and the learned judge was not entirely satisfied that this was sufficient evidence of identification - at least he was not prepared to base his verdict entirely upon that identification. However, he accepted the statements made by the Appellant as evidence of guilt. 3. The Appellant, on his appeal against conviction, has said that the whole of the case against him was concocted - that in fact this property was never found with him - and he denies having admitted the charges. We are satisfied the learned judge was entitled to bring in the verdicts which he did and the application for leave to appeal against convictions is dismissed. 4. As to the appeal against sentences we note that the total sentence amounts to three years. The Appellant had a previous conviction for robbery. That was in 1974, when he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. Prior to that he had been out of trouble for eight years, and prior to 1974 he had never been in prison. We incline to the view that three years in the present case was on the heavy side. The fact that a robbery was not reported, of course, does not make the robbery any less serious, but in all the circumstances we think that the judge could properly have made greater allowance for the fact that the Appellant made, in the first instance, a free confession of these offences. Had he pleaded Guilty the Appellant might have been treated even more leniently, but we are disposed to allow the appeal against sentences and to substitute sentences of twelve months on the first charge and four months each on the three other charges consecutive. That means that the total is reduced from three years to two. 4th June 1975. Representation: |