Yuen Ka-wing and Others v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 318/1975 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The first appellant was convicted of one offence of robbery and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The second appellant pleaded guilty to the same four robberies and was sentenced to four years on each count, the sentences to be concurrent. The third appellant was found guilty of committing the same four robberies and was given five years on each count, the sentences to be concurrent. The first and third appellants have appealed against their conviction and sentence; the second appellant
|
CACC000318/1975 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 318 OF 1975 -----------------
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & McMullin, JJ. Date of Judgment: 15th September, 1975. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The first appellant was convicted of one offence of robbery and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The second appellant pleaded guilty to the same four robberies and was sentenced to four years on each count, the sentences to be concurrent. The third appellant was found guilty of committing the same four robberies and was given five years on each count, the sentences to be concurrent. The first and third appellants have appealed against their conviction and sentence; the second appellant has appealed against his sentence only. 2. At the time of the trial there was another accused person involved who pleaded guilty to all four offences. He was sentenced to 2 1/2 years' imprisonment. He appealed against that sentence and the appeal was dismissed by this court in August. 3. The robberies were all serious robberies; weapons were used and there is no doubt that the first and third appellants were rightly convicted. Their appeals against conviction are therefore dismissed. It was urged on behalf of the first and third appellants that their sentence of five years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive in view of the fact that the fourth accused, who pleaded guilty, was sentenced to only 2 1/2 years' imprisonment. 4. We think that when members of a gang come before the courts they should all be tried by the same judge, whether at the same time or not. The sentence of 2 1/2 years given to the fourth accused would seem to be a very low sentence indeed considering the quality of the robberies committed in this case. However, we think that the sentence of five years passed on the third appellant in respect of each of the four cases of robbery was a proper sentence. We further think that a sentence of four years passed on the second appellant for the same four robberies was proper in that he was a younger man than the first and third appellants and he pleaded guilty. We are disturbed that the first appellant received a sentence of five years in respect of only one robbery. It is true that the robbery was a serious offence but the first appellant, as indeed all the appellants, had a clear record. 5. In the event, we think that the best thing to do is to reduce the sentence of five years passed on the first appellant to one of 3 1/2 years. The appeals against Sentence of the second and third appellants are dismissed.
Representation: Adams, c.c. for Crown Peter Nguyan (D.L.A.) for 1st and 3rd appellants. 2nd appellant in person. |