Kam Chung-tak and Another v. The Queen

CACC000042/1976

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 14th April, 1976.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellants pleaded guilty to one charge of robbery. They appeal against their sentences. The facts are rather unusual.

2. The first appellant, a man of 33, was known to the victim of the robbery, who was a woman aged 51. Nevertheless, he called on her, rang the bell and she answered the door and he entered together with the second appellant. The second appellant left the room for a few minutes and came back with a wooden weapon. The second appellant threatened the victim and he opened the front door from the inside and introduced a third robber into the room. This third man was not before the court. The second appellant and the third man then tied up the victim with rope, which came from the possession of the second appellant. They also tied up the amah, who was a woman of 77 years of age. They then proceeded to ransack the flat and left.

3. The appellants confessed their part in the crime to the police but pleaded Not Guilty when they were arraigned before the District Court. However, after a voire dire and the admission of the statements made by the two appellants, each appellant changed his plea to a plea of Guilty.

4. The first appellant was sentenced to six years' imprisonment and the second to four years' imprisonment. Counsel for the first appellant in the court below pleaded in mitigation that he was coerced into committing this offence. It appears from the record that he used no violence towards the victim, did not threaten her nor assist in tying up both women. He has a clear record and most of the property which was stolen has been returned.

5. The second appellant is a youth of 17. He suffered injuries in March 1975 which were considerable but there is very little that could be said in his favour apart from this.

6. The learned trial judge made no reference to the question of coercion of the first appellant when giving reasons for the imposition of the sentences. We note that the period of six years' imprisonment for an offence of this nature where there was, albeit at a late stage, a plea of guilty and where there was a clear record, is above the average of sentences in similar cases.

7. In all the circumstances, we think that the appeals of both appellants should be allowed to the extent that the sentence of six years passed on the first appellant be reduced to a sentence of four years and the sentence of four years passed on the second appellant be reduced to one of three years.

Representation:

Nahar Singh (D.L.A.) for 1st appellant.

2nd appellant in person.

Little for crown.