The Queen v. Chu Kwok-cheung

CACC000379/1984

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN

Coram: Hon. Yang, Barker & Kempster, JJ. A.

Date of hearing: 6th November, 1984.

Date of judgment: 6th November, 1984.

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Barker, J. A. :

1. The applicant applies for leave to appeal against sentences of 13 years' imprisonment imposed concurrently in respect of three robberies, a sentence of 5 years in respect of a further robbery and a sentence of 5 years in respect of shooting with intent, those last two sentences having been ordered to run concurrently with each other but consecutive to the term of 13 years' imprisonment, making a total of 18 years in all.

2. This Court has been urged by Mr. O'Reilly Mayne who, unfortunately for the applicant, did not personally warn him of its powers, to be as sympathetic as possible to his client.   We are bound to say that we feel no sympathy whatsoever for this violent and vicious man. We are also urged to take into account what Mr. O'Reilly Mayne called his immaturity. We can see no evidence of immaturity whatsoever in the facts of this case.   It may well be that he made two half-hearted attempts to commit suicide but that was after he had been taken into custody and may well reflect only his realization of the position into which his evil doing had got him.

3. He with others planned to rob three goldsmith shops. In the first robbery, which took place on the 22nd April last year, he put false number plates on a car and then he, with three associates, committed the robbery.  The plan was that one of them was the driver, one was armed with a knife, one was to seize the gold and the property and the Applicant himself was armed with a gun.  On reaching the shop, the Applicant pulled out the gun, the man with the knife threatened the staff and gold ornaments and watches to the value of over half a million dollars were taken.  All the property was disposed of by the robbers including the Applicant.  The gold ornaments were melted down on the premises of the Applicant before being sold.

4. So far as the second robbery is concerned, once again there were four men, once again the Applicant was the one who was armed with a gun and at that robbery some $250,000 worth of goods were taken. It was at that robbery that the alarm was raised.  Various police officers happened to be in the vicinity and they gave chase.  Police Constable 16957 was one of the officers chasing. He drew his revolver and called upon the culprits to stop.  Two of the robbers went one way and that police officer chased those two. Whilst he was chasing them he was shot in the back by the Applicant. The bullet entered his lower left back went right through his lung and came out through his chest.  The officer fell to the ground and so far from the Applicant being in fear and in panic, his reaction was then to go up to the officer, kick him and steal his revolver which was on the ground. The Applicant is indeed fortunate not to be facing a charge of murder.

5. As to the third goldsmith's shop the robbery took place on 22nd July of last year and a very similar method of approach was used by the robbers.  Once again the Applicant was armed with a gun.  Once inside the shop, which was the Wing Lung Goldsmith Shop, he drew his gun, pointed it at the staff and told them not to move.   Another robber threatened one of the employees and handcuffed him.  However, a member of the staff managed to get upstairs and warn the shop owner what was happening and that owner activated the alarm. On hearing that the robbers made good their escape but not before this Applicant had fired a warning shot from his gun.

6. These are crimes of great seriousness and people in the shoes of the Applicant must realize that if they choose to engage in violent crimes such as these where they are playing for heavy stakes, they will be most severely punished if they are caught.  I should add that of all the money and gold that was stolen not one dollar of it has been recovered.

7. In our view the totality of the sentences in this case was manifestly inadequate, we shall therefore grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence we shall set aside the sentence of 5 years' imprisonment which was passed upon the Applicant for shooting with intent and we shall substitute therefore a sentence of 9 years' imprisonment.   That will run concurrently with the sentence of 5 years which was passed upon him on Count 7 for robbery but consecutively with the sentences of 13 years' imprisonment which were passed upon him in respect of the robberies of the goldsmiths' shops.  The total sentences therefore will be increased from 18 years' imprisonment to 22 years' imprisonment. We add that had he not pleaded guilty we would have thought that a total of 25 years would have been appropriate, but because of his plea of guilty, we have given him a discount of 3 years therefrom.

Representation:

Mr. D. O'Reilly Mayne, Q. C. & J. Lee (Y. K. Poon & Co.) for Applicant.

Mr. M. K. Ricketts for Crown/Respondent.