Wan Cho Foon and Others v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 331/1969 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 18 August 1969.
1. Each of the accused in the present case has, after trial following his plea of not guilty, been convicted of four offences of robbery with aggravation. The second appellant has been convicted of an additional charge of larceny from the person. Wrist watches were taken from the victims in each case and additional property was involved in the second, third and fourth charges of robbery with aggravation. Each accused was sentenced to 2 1/2 years' imprisonment, concurrent on each charge, and they
|
CACC000331/1969 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.331 OF 1969 -----------------
Coram: Hogan, C.J. , Blair-Kerr, J. and Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 18 August 1969 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. Each of the accused in the present case has, after trial following his plea of not guilty, been convicted of four offences of robbery with aggravation. The second appellant has been convicted of an additional charge of larceny from the person. Wrist watches were taken from the victims in each case and additional property was involved in the second, third and fourth charges of robbery with aggravation. Each accused was sentenced to 2 1/2 years' imprisonment, concurrent on each charge, and they seek leave to appeal on the grounds that that sentence was too severe. 2. In sentencing them, the trial judge said that there was little to differentiate the degree of culpability of each of the accused; the third being the youngest but "the most unrepentant". The judge went on to say:-
3. Although the manner in which the trial judge has stated his reasons for the verdict indicates that great care and attention has been given to them, in that they are lengthy and contain a considerable measure of detail, they are by no means easy to follow and leave something to be desired. In particular, it is difficult to ascertain the precise findings of fact made by the judge in respect of each charge and to segregate the reasons for those findings. However, it is clear that he did find each accused guilty of each charge and, in doing so, relied largely on their own statements, which were supplemented and supported in a number of instances by the finding of the property mentioned in the statements and, in some instances, by the victim's identification of the accused. 4. The trial judge was, of course, fully entitled to rely on the statements, once they had been properly proved and admitted, but it is by no means clear from the statement of his reasons how he arrived at his eventual conclusions in regard to them, having at the outset set for himself a test in the following somewhat questionable terms:-
5. However, we are now concerned with the manner in which the judge reached his conclusions only to the extent that these reveal the details of the wrong-doing for which the accused are being punished. 6. It is apparent that in respect of the first four offences, those of robbery with aggravation, the watches etc. were taken from their owners by these three accused acting in concert and with the aggressive use of intimidation and force, a type of crime which is, unfortunately, on the increase. It is clear from their records that they had broken the law on a number of previous occasions but it is also fair to say that their previous records do not show a measure of force or violence, similar to that appearing in their more recent offences and it seems that dangerous drugs have played a large part in getting them into trouble. 7. In granting legal aid to the third accused, a judge of the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that he is aged 20, and considerably younger than the first accused, an ex-policeman aged 27, and the second, a man aged 48; circumstances which the judge thought might justify some distinction in the sentences. But when one looks at the record of the third accused and sees that he committed four larcenies in 1964 for which he was bound over on the 26th March, 1964 for two years; that this was followed by a further larceny on the 14th October in that year, for which he was sent to a training centre where he remained for 1 year and 4 months, and that this was followed in 1968 by a possession of dangerous drugs conviction which was again made the subject of a binding over, it would seem that this young man has had a number of chances and is likely to turn from the criminal way of life which he is now adopting, unless it is brought home to him that continuation of it must attract severe penalties. 8. Taking account of the serious nature of the offences proved, their number and the record of each of the appellants, we do not think we would be justified in interfering with the sentences imposed on any of them and the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. Representation: The judgment of the Full Court was pronounced by the President. 1st and 2nd Appellants in person. Paul FOK (C.C. Lee & Co.) assigned for the 3rd Appellant. I. A. Evans, Crown counsel, for the Respondent. |