R. v. Fu Lam

CACC000047/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No.47
(Criminal)

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

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

Date of Hearing: 12 June 1996

Date of Judgment: 12 June 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

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

1. This applicant faced two charges - assault with intent to rob and remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration. He pleaded guilty to both of those charges. The facts revealed that, while trying to rob a lady, who appears to have been Dutch, in a toilet in Chater Garden, he assaulted and stabbed her. The stab wounds were one of 2 cm depth on the chest and two of 1 cm depth on her thigh. They were not, it is true, serious stab wounds but the fact that he was prepared to use the knife on the victim is a serious matter in itself. Fortunately a police sergeant heard the commotion and the applicant was shortly thereafter apprehended.

2. The trial judge said when sentencing:

"I take a very serious view of this matter. A starting point for sentence of 7 years imprisonment or even more could be justified.

In all the circumstances the accused is convicted on both charges and is sentenced to 6 years imprisonment on the 1st charge and 15 months imprisonment on the 2nd charge. Bearing in mind the totality principal I order that the sentences be served concurrently."

3. The applicant now asks for leniency saying that the sentences were too heavy and that he is considerably handicapped. He told us in court today that he suffered injury resulting in a permanent limp. We agree with the view of the judge that this was a serious offence and that it merited as he said "seven years imprisonment or even more". However having adopted a starting point in the range of seven years, he then gave a reduction for plea of one year. This, we are satisfied was inadequate. The applicant was entitled to the now accepted discount for plea, there being no special considerations, of one third. Starting at seven years a discount of at least two years should have been allowed. We allow the application, treat it as the hearing of the appeal and vary the sentence from one of six years to one of five years. With the concurrent sentence of 15 months we do not interfere.

Representation:

Mr. F. Veltro, S.C.C. (Crown Prosecutor) for the Respondent.

Applicant in person.