R. v. Hui Wai Bong

CACC000401/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No.401
(Criminal)

______________

______________

Coram: Hon. Power, V.-P. and Mayo, J.A.

Date of hearing: 6 October 1995

Date of judgment: 6 October 1995

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Power, V.-P.(giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant faced one count of robbery and one of wounding. The robbery was particularized as follows: that he and the 2nd accused Wong Ka-ho, on 13th September 1994 inside Flat D on the 13th floor of 155 Johnston Road, Wanchai robbed Madam Tong Yuen-lai of cash $5,500, a wristwatch, a necklace, two rings, a wallet, a notebook and four bank cards. The wounding charge alleged that at the same time and place he had unlawfully and maliciously wounded Madam Tong with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.

2. The trial judge when sentencing made the following observations:

"The offences to which the two of you have pleaded guilty were very serious. You chose as your victim a defenceless woman and you decided to rob her when she was alone at her most vulnerable in the evening when she was alone in her flat. She wasn't just threatened with violence. She was gagged, blind-folded and tied up. And when she resisted you, HUI Wai-bong, hit her twice with a meat cleaver. Mercifully her injuries were such that although she has modest scarring for life, she has no other permanent disabilities. But the experience to which she was subjected so terrified her that for a while she fainted.

I do not intend to impose a consecutive sentence for the offence of wounding with intent. Instead I shall reflect the violence which you used on your victim in the sentence that I impose on the charge of robbery. To reflect the aggravating features of that charge, I propose to take 10-and-a-half years' imprisonment as my starting point.

I take into account your unfortunate family background, the fact that you were only 22 when you committed this robbery and the fact that you have no previous convictions for offences of violence or dishonest. But I have to say that I regard your background, your age and your previous character as negligible mitigation for offences as serious as these. The only mitigation of substance is your pleas of guilty, your co-operation with the police following your arrest and your willingness had it been necessary to give evidence against Wong Ka-po. Pleas of guilty are to be encouraged and in order to reflect these mitigating features, I propose to discount the sentence I would otherwise have imposed on you by 3-and-a-half years."

3. The trial judge clearly took all of the relevant factors into account when sentencing. This was a carefully planned robbery involving three offenders which was executed by the applicant with a particular degree of calculated violence.

4. Mr. Grounds, who appears for him today, complains that the starting point taken by the judge was too high and that the judge, despite his reference to the mitigating circumstances, gave an inadequate discount. In our view the starting point was amply justified. The circumstances was such that a starting point in the vicinity of that imposed, 10½ years, was a proper one. The discount, as Mr. Grounds has pointed out, was one of 33 1/3% - 3½ years. He submits that discounts of up to 50% can be allowed in cases of offenders who plead guilty and offer co-operation. The discount was not a generous one but was not so inadequate as to require interference by this court.

5. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence must, therefore, be refused.

Representation:

Ms. Wong Kam-hing, A.P.C.C. (Ag.) (Crown Prosecutor) for the Respondent.

Applicant in person.