The Queen v. Chan Man-tai

CACC000352/1984

Bank robbery - sentence.

BETWEEN

---------------

Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Yang and Silke, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 14th September, 1984.

Date of judgment: 14th September, 1984.

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Yang, J.A.:

1. This is the Applicant's application for leave to appeal against a sentence of 10 years imposed upon him for a robbery. The robbery was committed at about 12.20 p.m. on the 12th April 1984, at the Matauwai Road Branch of the Hong Kong Commercial Bank. Fortunately there were no customers inside the Bank at the time, and the bank staff were working behind the cashier counter. The lobby of the Bank was made of tile or stone floor, partitioned off by a marble counter behind which the staff worked, and there was also glass or plastic panelling above the marble counter dividing the public sector from the working sector of the Bank.

2. The Defendant, who had at one time delivered distilled water to the Bank, obviously knew the place well and, perhaps, was also known to at least some of the staff working there. On the day in question, he entered the Bank carrying with him a couple of plastic buckets, poured the contents onto the flooor and declared that it was a robbery. The liquid smelt of kerosene and indeed when the Government Chemist, after the robbery, came to examine the substance it was found to be kerosene. Then the Defendant made a gesture as if he was about to strike a match to light the kerosene, and one could imagine that the staff in the Bank must have been put to considerable fear and alarm because of this gesture. He then pushed a bag through the glass partition and demanded money. A bank staff by the name of Mr. Nip put into the bag some $33,730 in cash whilst another very alert member of the staff activated the alarm bell. When the Applicant received the money from Mr. Nip, he kicked over another bucket causing more kerosene to be spilt over onto the floor.

3. When the Police came, the Applicant's fingerprints and palmprint were found on the main door of the Bank, and later five members of the bank staff identified him at an identification parade.

4. He pleaded guilty to the charge and the Judge sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment taking the view that it was a very serious offence. Any bank robbery must be regarded as a serious offence but in this case, we are of the view that perhaps the Judge had given undue weight to some of the factors thereby imposing a sentence which is heavier than is appropriate. He said in his Reasons for Sentence that the lives of the staff were endangered but in view of the sort of flooring that was made and also the marble and glass partition between the public sector and the staff, coupled with the fact that kerosene was not a liquid as combustible as say petrol one may fairly say that the lives of the staff were not endangered though it might have been quite a different matter had the public sector been filled with customers.

5. The Judge also said that the offence was committed after careful planning. Whilst it must be admitted that some degree of planning was necessary, at least to the extent of obtaining the kerosene and bringing in the buckets, it was nevertheless a very ill-planned operation and in fact very little planning would have been necessary. The Judge appreciated that the Applicant pleaded guilty as a result of remorse, but he declined to give much credit to that plea because of the very strong evidence that was available against him in the form of identification by five members of the bank staff and his palmprint and fingerprints on the door of the Bank. The real issue as far as his plea of guilty is concerned is whether he did plead guilty out of a sense of remorse or whether he thought the game was up and there was no point in fighting the case. Since the Judge accepted that his plea of guilty did express remorse, we feel that either he started at too high a figure or that more credit ought to have been given to him for that plea. In all the circumstances we are of the view that a sentence of 8 years would be appropriate. We therefore treat the application as an appeal, allow the appeal and reduce the sentence of 10 years to one of 8.

Representation:

Mr. J. Hemmings for Applicant.

Mr. S.R. Mason-Parker, Crown Counsel for Respondent.