The Queen v. Leung Kwok Choi and Others
Read the full judgment text of CACC 475/1986 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The 1 st applicant has invited this Court, in considering his application for leave to appeal against sentence, to consider the part that he played in this robbery. That, we have done, and we are satisfied, upon his own statement and what he said in this Court that the part he played in this robbery, was an important and crucial planning and advisory role. In those circumstances, we can see no grounds whatever in criticizing the sentence that the judge imposed upon him, and his application fo
|
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1986, No. 475 _________________ BETWEEN
_________________ Coram: Hon. Yang, J.A., Hon. Power and Hon Hunter, J.J. Date of hearing: 28th January 1987 Date of delivery of judgment: 28th January 1987 _________________ JUDGMENT _________________ Hunter, J.: 1. The 1st applicant has invited this Court, in considering his application for leave to appeal against sentence, to consider the part that he played in this robbery. That, we have done, and we are satisfied, upon his own statement and what he said in this Court that the part he played in this robbery, was an important and crucial planning and advisory role. In those circumstances, we can see no grounds whatever in criticizing the sentence that the judge imposed upon him, and his application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed. 2. As to the second applicant, we have considered very carefully the criticisms directed at this sentence by counsel on his behalf. He pleaded guilty in contrast to the 1st applicant, to three robberies, and not two. In the circumstances, it seems to us that the trial judge was entitled to take as a starting point for the consideration of sentence, the figure of 10 years. We say that having regard to the serious nature of this robbery; not least to the fact that one of the victims was quite seriously injuried in the process. The question really which was addressed to us was the sufficiency of the discount that the judge had allowed in respect to two elements: (1) the 2nd applicant’s plea of guilty at the trial and (2) the fact that he gave evidence at the request of and on behalf of the prosecution. In respect to that, he allowed a total discount of 2 years. In respect of the plea, he pointed out this had come at a very late stage, having regard to the fact that the 2nd applicant had already given evidence on the voire dire. In the course of that evidence, the 2nd applicant had, as he admitted later, told a number of lies and made a totally unjustified attack on the police. In the circumstances, the trial judge said that he thought that a minimum discount only would be appropriate and with that we are minded to agree. As far as his giving evidence is concerned, the trial judge took the view that the evidence that he had given was very largely untrue, very largely self-serving, and given for reasons personal to himself. In those circumstances, we cannot see any grounds for criticizing the total discount that the trial judge was minded to allow in the 2nd applicant’s case, and his application is likewise dismissed. 3. The 3rd applicant pleaded guilty to a single count of obtaining property by deception. He specifically accepted the accuracy the statement of facts which was laid before the Court at the time that plea was entered, which amounted to an admission of his part of helping to dispose of one of the two stolen Mercedes Benz motor cars with the aid of a stolen company chop and with the aid of a stolen I.D. Card. It seems to this Court that those facts are very relevant to the Court’s function in sentencing him, as is also the fact that he claimed credit for receiving only $10,000 of the total proceeds of the cash cheque he persuaded the dealer to part with because he had to share it out with the others. We do not accept that the simple fraud cases to which our attention has been directed, are precisely material. The principles behind those cases are in any event, to be the subject matter of review, and in the view of some an overdue review, shortly. So we do not regard those cases as persuasive in his case. We concentrate upon the facts which he admitted. In those circumstances, it seems to us that a sentence of 4 years imprisonment would not have been out of place. Therefore we can see no good or sufficient reason for interfering with the sentence of 3½ years imposed upon the 3rd applicant following a plea of guilty. His application for leave to appeal against sentence is likewise dismissed. Leung Kwok Choi, 1st applicant in person Gary Blowman (D.L.A.) for 2nd applicant Gary Blowman (C.K. Mok & Co.) for 3rd applicant A.A. Bruce for Crown/Respondent |