The Queen v. Wong Wai Hung

CACC000514/1988

-------

Coram: Cons, Ag. C.J., Power & Macdougall, JJ.A.

Date of hearing: 2 August 1989

Date of delivery of judgment: 2 August 1989

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Cons, Ag. C.J., delivered the judgment of the Court:

1. CHAN Ping Kwong, CHUI Chi Keung and WONG Wai Hung were convicted on their own pleas before O'Dea J. of a robbery which they committed with two others in the early hours of one Sunday morning in April last year.

2. The crime took place at a flat in the 8th floor of Mei Foo Sun Chuen. At that time Chan ran a decoration business. By reason of that he had been working in the flat in question not long before with his staff, some of whom also took part in the robbery. One of them, we do not know whom, managed to sneak out the keys of the flat long enough to have duplicates made. They were used to gain entrance later on.

3. It was an extremely well planned robbery. All five met together to discuss what each should exactly do when the time came. There was to be a main party, four of them, which would include Chui and Wong, whose job was to enter and tie up the occupants of the flat. Each would take with him a knife, some would have rope and adhesive tape. They would be careful to smear their fingertips with glue so that no fingerprints would be left and to put stockings over their heads to conceal their features.

4. They gained entrance to the flat around about 4 o'clock in the morning. They went first to the children's room where there were two boys, aged 14 and 17 and an amah. They tied them up and they masked their eyes and their mouths with adhesive tape. In the course of the operation one boy was badly cut and in the end needed minor surgery to his hand. The four of them then repeated the exercise with the two parents. By that stage it was time for Chan to come and do his part, which was to identify where the valuables were kept, because he had taken particular notice of this when he had been working there earlier. All told it was a good haul. They made away with cash, watches, rings, jewellery, radios, a video cassette and a camera. They also took a credit card which somebody used later that day to draw $500.

5. For their respective parts O'Dea J. sentenced Chan to 12 years' imprisonment, Chui to 10 years and Wong to 6 years. All three apply for leave today to appeal against their sentences. Mr. Nunns who appears for Chan and Chui has suggested the sentences are beyond the bracket within which sentences for similar offences are normally passed. Mr. Forrest, who appears for Wong, suggests that in all the circumstances the sentence was excessive.

6. Chan is 27 years old. He is married with a daughter. He received primary education, was then an apprentice in construction work. He set up his own decoration business last year. As we have just indicated it was through that that the crime came to be conceived and committed. He was the employer of some of those at least who took part. It was accepted by the judge below, and not disputed in this Court, that he was also the ringleader of the criminal gang. It is important to realise that not only was he the ringleader, but by his position as employer of Wong he influenced Wong, some 10 years his junior, to take part.

7. Chui is 22 years and single. He was an apprentice in the restaurant business, later became a security guard and was finally employed by Chan in the decoration business.

8. Wong is only 18. He is the product of a broken family, has a bad school record and a history of mixing with bad company. On the other hand he is apparently genuinely remorseful for his conduct. Both he and his mother have been helpful to the police. The mother in particular played a most important and unusual part in obtaining evidence against Chan by engaging him in conversation with a tape recorder concealed on her person. Although the judge does not expressly say so, he must have taken 14 years at least as a starting point for consideration of the correct sentences. With respect to him that was wrong, such a period having more appropriate to offences of armed robbery upon banks or jewellery shops: R. v. MAN Yui To AR 6 of 1984.

9. This was a bad case of its kind. It contains almost every kind of aggravating feature which one could imagine. But even so, in our view the sentences imposed were beyond the level which is acceptable. We have already indicated the parts played by each of the three applicants. We have also mentioned what we take to be the wholly exceptional circumstances regarding Wong, by reason of his mother's conduct. Taking these into account we feel the appropriate sentences should have been respectively nine years, seven years and three years. Accordingly we grant  the applications, treat the hearing as the appeals themselves, allow the appeals, and reduce the sentences accordingly.

Representation:

I.G. Cross, Crown Prosecutor for the Respondent

M.R. Nunns, D.L.A. for both applicants in appeal No. 508/88

Robert Forrest, D.L.A. for applicant in appeal No. 514/88