Chan Wai Lam v. The Queen

CACC000529/1973

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 529 OF 1973

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

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

Coram: Pickering and Cons, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 1st August, 1973.

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

JUDGMENT

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

Pickering, J.:

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of robbery of $96.10 and a wristwatch, and to one charge of wounding with intent.

2. The facts were that on the evening of 6th June 1973 the victim, who is a taxi driver, picked up the appellant at about 10.45 p.m. near the Peninsula Hotel. The appellant instructed the victim to drive him to the Wang Tau Hom Resettlement Estate and, at a petrol station near that estate, instructed the driver to stop thereafter threatening him with a pair of scissors and taking $50 and the victim's watch.

3. It is not clear why the appellant pleaded guilty to robbery of $96.10 when all that was alleged in the statement of facts put before the court was a sum of $50.

4. After the robbery, the appellant ran from the taxi with the driver in pursuit. Near Blocks 8 and 9 of the Resettlement Estate the driver picked up an empty bottle and tried to apprehend the appellant who stabbed him several times in the chest with a large pair of scissors. The victim collapsed but his shouts were heard by police who arrived on the scene and who, after a brief search, located the appellant and recovered the scissors and the $50 taken from the taxi driver. The appellant was identified by the driver.

5. The appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment on each of the two charges, those sentences to run concurrently. He told the court that he was a seaman and that having received his pay and made a remittance to his parents in China, he lost the balance of his pay in gambling. He was in urgent need of $100 and therefore "performed this silly thing".

6. Before the Appellate Court he said that he had wounded the taxi driver because he had to defend himself against the bottle; his release, he said would be wrong "but three years is a very long time".

7. The appellant is 29 years old and previously had a clear record. He himself appears surprised that he committed these crimes and, having regard to his age and his record, it is a surprise which we share. The appellant swore now that he would never again commit any similar offence - an assertion heard in these courts with endless regularity and frequently made with no sincerity. In the present case we are inclined to believe that the appellant is sincere in his assertion and, having regard to his age and clear record we agree with him that three years is "a very long time." It is in recognition of the fact that the offences are wholly untypical of the man, of his age and clear record and in the belief that a sentence of two years will both adequately punish and deter him that we allow the appeal and substitute for the concurrent sentences of three years imprisonment, concurrent sentences of two years.

Representation:

Appellant in person

Duffy, C.C., for respondent.