The Queen v. Chiu Hon Chung and Another

CACC000243/1985

Coram: Cons & Silke, JJ. A. and Mantell, J

Date of hearing: 29 August 1985

Date of delivery of Judgment: 29 August 1985

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Mantell, J.:

1. The applicants CHIU Hon-chung and. MAN Sai-chung are 22 and 22 years old respectively and each seeks leave to appeal from a. sentence of six and a half years imprisonment imposed by His Honour District Judge Daniell on the 24th of May this year following upon a plea of. guilty to robbery. In passing sentence the learned Judge remarked that had the matter proceeded in the High Court the sentences may well have been greater. We are inclined to agree.

2. On the 21st of January, at about 4:00 in the morning they were, the applicants that is, two of three men who broke into a shop with living quarters at the junction of Portland Street and Dundas Street, Kowloon. Police officers had been tipped off and wore keeping watch outside the building and the applicants together with a third man had been seen to visit the premises earlier, presumably to reconnoitre. That this was a planned attack is evident from the fact they were equipped with a key to gain entrance to the main building and crowbars to force their way into the shop. Inside the premises the owner and a member of his staff were asleep in separate cubicles The employee, LEUNG Wing-hoi, was woken up by a blow or blows to the face with a hard object. He was then punched. Even though he was dizzy he realized that he was being attacked by three men, one of whorm carried a knife with which he was threatened. Mr. Leung was then tied up with adhesive tape and the robbers set about ransacking the shop from which they removed over HK$17,000 and miscellaneous items. Before leaving they put a plastic bag over Mr. Leung's head and it was indeed fortunate that he was able to free himself quite quickly after they left. The applicants were seen to leave shortly after the third man who has not been apprehended. They got into a taxi which was followed by the police and stopped. They were found to have the bulk of the stolen property in their possession and Man had the key to the outer door.

3. Against that background they complain that their sentences are too long. It is said on their behalf that they have been given insufficient discount for their pleas of guilty; that it should have been more than the six months which the learned Judge allowed. Effectively each claims that this is a first offence, as indeed it is for all practical purposes, and each attributes to tae third man, the one who has not been caught, the main responsibility for the more horrific aspects of the offence.

4. This was a robbery following a violent breaking into combined retail premises and living quarters. It was planned a knife was used; the victim was terrorised, beaten and tied up; a bag eras put over his head. All these are matters which aggravate the offence. Six and a half years was not a day too long.  These applications are refuse.

Representation:

Frank Wong (R. J. Oliver) for both appellants.

Graham Jackson, Assistant Principal Crown Counsel for respondent.