Leung Wing Fu v. The Queen

CACC000362/1981

Proper sentence for robbery of goldsmiths and jewellers.

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

Coram: Cons, J.A., Silke and Barker, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 3rd July 1981

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

JUDGMENT

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

Cons, J.A.:

1. The appellant was convicted of robbing a jewellery shop in Austin Road. With one other man he waited until closing time and then, as the two owners were rolling down the iron shutter, pounced upon them, forced them into the shop, made them lie faced down upon the floor and tied them up. The robbers made no obvious use of a weapon, other than the weapon of surprise, but an imitation pistol was found later to have been left behind.

2. The robbers relieved the owners of their personal valuables and then proceeded to help themselves from the display counters. As they were doing this a passing policeman knocked on the door and the two robbers, surprised by this intrusion, made a dash for it, spliting up as soon as they were outside the door, but to no avail for both were caught after a chase. The appellant was lucky not to have been injured, for the constable who was chasing him fired two shots from his service revolver.

3. The appellant deserves some credit for his plea of guilty, but too much weight cannot be attached to it for the evidence was heavily against him. He has a short record of violent crime, although the last offence, suspected person found loitering, was as long ago as January 1976.

4. The trial judge imposed a sentence of nine years. The appellant applied to a single judge for leave to appeal against that sentence, stressing his plea of guilty and adding the unfortunate death of his father, three weeks after his arrest, leaving him the sole breadwinner of a family which consisted of a mother with heart trouble, aged grandparents and two small sisters.

5. The single judge gave leave to appeal, not because he necessarily thought the sentence excessive, but so that "we may have some guidance and tariff for these offences which are all too frequent today".

6. When it comes to robbery goldsmiths and jewellers have a lot in common with banks. They are in possession of large quantities of goods that, like cash, are compact in value, easily transported and easily disposed of, thus offering great temptation to would be robbers. Again, by their very nature they are required to make a public display of their goods, and so like banks, are particularly vulnerable to attack.

7. In R. v. LAW Wai-ming⁽¹⁾, this court set out guidelines for the assistance of sentencers in relation to bank robberies. It set six years as the normal minimum for armed robbery of a bank, the sentence to be increased in accordance with the number of persons and degree of planning involved, the amount of money taken, the danger to the public and so on. We would add as another factor, actual violence to persons on the premises.

8. In R. v. CHAN Kin-chung⁽²⁾, the court explained the use of the word "armed" in its previous decision as limited to knives or other weapons, not being firearms or imitation firearm. If these were even carried the sentence should be not less than eight years.

9. In the present instance an imitation pistol was carried. There was some violence to the victims, in that they were forcibly and suddenly pushed to the ground and tied up. Nine years is an appropriate sentence.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Halley, counsel for Crown/Respondent.

(1) Cr. App. 1001 of 1979

(2) Application for Review 12 of 1980