Chau Wai-man v. The Queen

CACC000556/1981

Criminal law - sentence - terms of imprisonment partly consecutive and partly concurrent - practice undesirable and not to be followed.

_______

Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Power and Mayo, JJ.

Date of hearings: 29 January 1982

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P. :

1. This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentences of imprisonment on ten charges.  The Appellant was convicted on his own plea on all these charges. The first four related to the robbery of persons inside dwelling houses with weapons and the other six charges related to robberies in lifts, again with weapons. The learned Chief Justice passed sentences of 8 years' imprisonment concurrent on the first four charges, and 6 years' imprisonment concurrent on the other charges. However, he added a direction that two years of the sentences imposed in the 5th to 10th charges should be served consecutively to the sentences on the 1st to 4th charges.

2. We see no ground for saying that the overall sentence of 10 years thus produced was too severe. All that the Appellant has urged on his own behalf is that sentences of this length have been passed on persons convicted of robbing police officers of pistols. That is correct, but only where there has been one such offence. Sentences of up to 8 years' imprisonment have been passed regularly for invasions of private domestic premises and here we have no less than four such offences, whilst sentences of 5 and 4 years' imprisonment have been passed for single instances of robbery in a lift and here we have no less than six such robberies. Nevertheless, we questioned whether it was appropriate that a sentence should be partially concurrent and partially consecutive. The advantages of adopting such a course are obvious, but it also may produce difficulties. Fortunately, counsel for the Crown has been able to refer us to authority. In Gregory & Mills (1969) 53 Cr. App. R. 294 the Court of Appeal in England came to the conclusion that to impose a sentence in this form is undesirable and wrong and that such a practice should not be followed. The judge there considered that a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment was appropriate,

but he could achieve that end in a number of different ways, for example, by giving concurrent sentences of twenty-one months consecutive sentences of twelve and nine months, as to which there could be no complaint. In the opinion of this Court, the desired end should be attained in one of those two ways or possibly by other means.

3. We think that we ought to follow that precedent. Whereas in that case the court saw fit to reduce one of the sentences, we do not think that would be appropriate here. We think that 10 years' imprisonment was amply deserved and we shall therefore allow the appeal and increase the sentences on the first four charges to one of 10 years' imprisonment. The sentences on the fifth to tenth counts will then be made concurrent. The effect therefore is that the Appellant gains no advantage from this appeal, save that we shall not order any loss of time.

29th January 1982.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Mason-Parker for Crown/Respondent.