Law Wai-ming and Another v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 1001/1979 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 28 February 1980 before Roberts, C.J., McMullin, J.A. and Leonard, J..
Criminal law – sentencing – bank robbery – armed robbery – tariff – concurrent sentences – disparity – appeal against sentence – The second defendant pleaded guilty to robbery and attempted robbery at two bank branches and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment on each count, concurrent. The fourth defendant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery at one branch and was sentenced to 7 years. Both sought leave to appeal against sentence on grounds including disparity and insufficient credit for assistance to police. The Court of Appeal held that a heavier sentence for two offences than for one is proper, and concurrent sentences of 10 years for these offences are not excessive. For armed bank robberies, the tariff should begin at 6 years and go upwards, considering factors like planning, danger to staff, and amount involved. The sentence of 7 years was only one year above the normal minimum and not excessive. Applications refused.
Legal issues: Appeal against sentence for bank robbery
Outcome: Applications for leave to appeal against sentence refused for both appellants.
Cited by 1 case
|
CACC001001/1979
Coram: Roberts, C.J., McMullin, J.A. and Leonard, J. Date of Judgment: 28 February 1980 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. LAW Wai-ming, the second defendant, pleaded guilty to two counts, one of robbery at a branch of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank on the 13th March, 1979; the other of attempted robbery at another branch of the same bank on the 12th April, 1979. He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment on each court, the sentences to run concurrently and seeks leave to appeal against sentence. 2. TSOI, the fourth defendant, pleaded guilty to the attempted robbery on 12th April, 1979 and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. He seeks leave to appeal against sentence. 3. It was submitted on behalf of the second defendant that he had given whatever assistance he could to the police after his arrest, that sufficient account had not been taken of this, and that there should also not be a disparity between the sentences imposed upon him and the fourth defendant. 4. The judge stated in his Reasons for Sentence that he had imposed different sentences on the two defendants because the second defendant had pleaded guilty to two offences and the fourth defendant to one only. 5. We consider that it is perfectly proper for a judge to impose a heavier sentence for two robberies or attempted robberies than he would for one, all other circumstances being equal. Nor do we think that concurrent sentences of ten years for these two offences are excessive. 6. It is a correct approach for the judge to decide what he thinks the combined length of imprisonment should be. He may then impose the same sentence on each count, to run concurrently, or impose the same or different sentences on each making them run consecutively, or make sentences run partly concurrently and partly consecutively. 7. Mr. Huggins argued, on behalf of the fourth defendant, that the sentence of seven years imposed should be reduced to six. In particular, he invited us to decide that an armed incursion into a bank should not be regarded as intrinsically more serious, and so deserving of a heavier punishment, than a similar invasion of a private home, for which the usual sentence is about six years' imprisonment. 8. However, a particular odium has customarily attached to armed robberies of banks, which have attracted more than the normal sentence for armed robberies of other kinds. Banks are in possession of huge quantities of cash and are particularly vulnerable to attack, so that the courts have long taken the view that attacks on them must be punished with considerable severity. 9. Mr. Huggins submitted that the proper sentence should be greatly influenced by the degree of planning involved in the expedition; by the physical danger which was caused to members of the public and employees of the bank in the course of the raid; and by the amount of money involved. We agree with him that these are important factors, which any court ought to take into account when deciding upon the proper sentence to be imposed for a robbery of a bank. 10. However, where there is a robbery or attempted robbery of a bank by one or more persons, all or some of whom are armed with imitation firearms, or knives or other offensive weapons, the scale of sentence should normally begin at the level which in the past we have said to be proper for armed intrusions into domestic premises, that is to say, the tariff should begin at six years and go upwards. The various factors to which Mr. Huggins has referred would tend to aggravate, so as to produce a higher sentence than six years. 11. This was not a well-planned robbery; the degree of danger to banks staff was small, since they were apparently protected behind glass and out of reach of the knife which was carried by at least one of the gang. 12. Although this is not a very serious example of an armed robbery, the sentence was not excessive, being only one year above the normal minimum for such offences. 13. Therefore, we refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence. Representation: Miss J. Leong (John N. Smart & Co.) for 1st appellant A. Huggins (Hampton, Winter & Glynn) for 2nd appellant C.W. Reid for the Crown/Respondent |
Other judgments that cite this case