The Queen v. Chan Fu Kui

CACC000006/1986

[Reduction of sentence  for assistance to police]

BETWEEN:

Coram: Roberts, C.J., Yang, J.A. & Penlington, J

Date of judgment: 1st May, 1986.

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

JUDGMENT

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

Roberts, C.J. -

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence by CHAN Fu-kui, who pleaded guilty to three counts of robbery of a very serious nature.

2. The first count was concerned with a well planned robbery in May 1985, of The Time Watch Company, by a gang of seven armed men, as a result of which property worth $770,000 were stolen. Some members of the group were armed and shots were fired at members of the police force.

3. The second count related to a similar robbery, of the Lai Fung Goldsmith Shop, which took place in the same month. The defendant waited outside the goldsmith shop, while two of his colleagues, carrying loaded, firearms, entered the shop, threatened the staff and stole property worth $365,000.

4. The third count dealt with a robbery which tool place on 8th June, 1985. The defendant and four other men, armed with loaded weapons, stopped and ransacked a security van removing from it cash and cheques worth about HK$2M. There was an exchange of gun-fire, in the course of which one of the security guards was shot in the stomach and seriously wounded.

5. The trial judge took into account, not only the plea of guilty of the defendant but his undertaking to give evidence in future trials of offences which were connected directly or indirectly with these robberies.

6. In considering the correct sentence to be imposed, the judge said that, had it not been   for these mitigating factors, he would have sentenced the defendant to about 28 years' imprisonment. This is a very long term but we are unable to say that, in view of the very serious circumstances of these robberies, it was excessive. The judge thought that the maximum discount that it was proper for him to allow, giving full weight to the assistance that the defendant had already given to the police and had undertaken to give in the future was 50% of the sentence which he would otherwise have imposed.

7. In another appeal, which was heard last week by this court, we decided that a reduction of 50% was a perfectly proper one for a judge to permit in an ordinary case where the defendant had pleaded guilty and had given assistance to the prosecution in other cases.

8. We then noted that in English cases it had been suggested that it would be proper for the courts to allow up to a two-thirds deduction for what is called in England a "supergrass" that is to say, a defendant who had expressed his willingness to assist the police at considerable personal risk in a number of cases. It is for the judge in each instance on the facts before him to decide into which category a particular defendant falls.

9. We are satisfied that, on the basis of the information given to us both by Mr. Graham on behalf of his client and Mr. McNamara on behalf of the prosecution, this defendant falls within the supergrass category and should be given a discount of  two-thirds of the sentence of 28 years, which the judge would have imposed.

10. We therefore allow the application for leave to appeal against sentence, quash the sentence of 13 years on each count concurrent and substitute therefor sentences of nine years' imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.

Representation:

Mr. P. Graham (D.L.A.) for Appellant.

Mr. J.P. McNamara, Senior Asst. Crown Prosecutor, with

Mr. G.J.X. McCoy, Senior Crown Counsel, for Respondent/ Crown Prosecutor.