BabelCite

Sze Suen Yin v. HKSAR

Read the full judgment text of FAMC 7/2004 on BabelCite. This FAMC judgment was delivered on 18 February 2004.

1. Let us assume that the applicant's role was significantly less culpable than that of his co-accused who received the same sentence. On that basis, the Court of Appeal's approach, although they did not put it quite like that, amounts to this. Each man, even if one was significantly less culpable than the other, deserved at least 4 1/2 years' imprisonment. And if one of them was significantly less culpable than the other, it would only mean that the more culpable man was even luckier than the l

Case No.FAMC 7/2004
Court
FAMC
Date18 Feb 2004
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

FAMC000007/2004

FAMC No. 7 of 2004

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 7 OF 2004 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACC NO. 208 OF 2002)

_____________________

Between:
SZE SUEN YIN Applicant
AND
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Date of Hearing: 18 February 2004

Date of Determination: 18 February 2004

_____________________

DETERMINATION

_____________________

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

1.Let us assume that the applicant's role was significantly less culpable than that of his co-accused who received the same sentence. On that basis, the Court of Appeal's approach, although they did not put it quite like that, amounts to this. Each man, even if one was significantly less culpable than the other, deserved at least 4 1/2 years' imprisonment. And if one of them was significantly less culpable than the other, it would only mean that the more culpable man was even luckier than the less culpable one.

2.We do not think that such an approach would be wrong in principle or involve any departure accepted norms unless the disparity in culpability was glaring. In our view, it is not reasonably arguable that there was any glaring disparity here.

3.Leave to appeal is refused.

(Kemal Bokhary) (Patrick Chan) (R.A.V. Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Permanent Judge

Representation:

Mr James McGowan (instructed by Messrs Hastings & Co. and assigned by the Legal Aid Department) for the applicant

Ms Lynda Shine (of the Department of Justice) for the respondent