So Ma-tsai and Others v. The Queen

CACC000554/1973

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 554 OF 1973

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

Coram: Pickering & Cons, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 11 September, 1973

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

JUDGMENT

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

Cons, J.:

1. Two charges of robbery were laid in the District Court. The first was against all four appellants and to which they all pleaded guilty. The victims were a police inspector, his wife and his relatives and several customers in a restaurant to which they had gone for refreshment after an evening cinema show. As soon as the inspector entered the door he was grabbed from behind by one man while another man flourished a long knife at his chest. His service revolver and ammunition, his warrant card and some cash were taken from him. At the same time two other men also armed with long knives threatened his wife and the others in the restaurant and took from them all cash or valuables or both.

2. The second charge was laid against only the first, second and fourth appellants. It was a robbery that they had perpetrated the week before in a ladies beauty saloon by pretending at first to be policemen making enquiries. When the proprietress sensibly demanded some identification they again produced long knives and made away with cash from the till and valuables from some of the customers. All three pleaded guilty.

3. Concurrent sentences of five and three years were passed upon each appellant respectively, to be followed by two years police supervision. Each appellant will therefore serve the same length of time in prison although the third appellant was convicted of only one charge against two in respect of the others. While we agree that the learned trial judge was correct in passing the maximum sentence in respect of the two charges we think the sentences should also reflect the lesser responsibility of the third defendant and we accordingly allow the appeal to the extent of reducing the sentences on each appellant on the first charge to four years and those of the first, second and fourth appellants on the second charge to one year, the sentences to be served consecutively. There is thereby no change in the total period of imprisonment to be served in respect of those appellants, but that of the third appellant will be one year less.

4. We also allow the appeal in respect of the first and third appellants to the extent of removing the order for police supervision. Both of these appellants have clear records. The purpose of such orders as we apprehend them is to provide a form of control on release from prison over those persons who by their conduct in the past have shown themselves unlikely to respond to normal periods of imprisonment. It is only in unusual circumstances that such an order should be made upon a first offender. We see none with regard to these two particular appellants.

Representation:

Appellants in person

E. Doh, c.c. for respondent