The Queen v. Seiu Sau Ling

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1986, No. 456
(Criminal)

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

and

SEIU SAU LING

___________

Coram: Yang & Silke, JJ.A. & Penlington, J.

Date of Hearing: 13th March 1987

Date of Judgment: 13th March 1987

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Silke, J.A.

1. The Applicant, Shiu Sau Ling, was charged together with the 1st Defendant at trial, Miu Wa Yee who was her. 20 years old boyfriend, with robbery. Both she and Miu pleaded guilty after a voir dire had taken place admitting cautioned statements.

2. The robbery had taken place on the 14th May 1986 in a domestic flat at Java Road in North Point. The two had entered, the boyfriend carried a knife, a 62 years old woman was tied up and gagged, the telephone wire was cut and the flat was ransacked. A good deal of the property was subsequently found in another flat which the two Defendants at trial shared.

3. The 1st Defendant received a sentence of 3½ years' imprisonment: and the Applicant 2½ years ' imprisonment. She lodged her application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time and leave was granted to bring that application.

4. The basis of Mr. Ramanathan's submissions are that here was a girl with a previous clear record who had, to an extent, gone upon this expedition out of a sense of misguided loyalty. Upon the last occasion, he asked us to consider asking for a background report upon the girl from the Social Welfare Department and to this request we acceded. We made it clear that this was in order to assist us in considering the propriety of the sentence passed and the submissions which had been made by Mr. Ramanathan on her behalf. We have received that Report.

5. The reason why these two set out upon this robbery was that the male had become involved with loansharks and this was an attempt to resolve his difficulties. There was some suggestion that the loansharks had told the boy that the girl would be sold into a brothel if the money were not raised. The Applicant felt that she had no alternative but to take part in the offence. Because of this she feels her sentence is too severe.

6. In our judgment none of the reasons advanced as to why she took part in this can excuse a serious offence of robbery. A knife was carried and injury was inflicted - this was accepted by the Crown as being accidental. Those who carry knives are proned to use them and injuries, accidental or deliberate, are likely to occur.

7. The Applicant is not eligible for training centre and this is not a case in which training centre would necessarily be proper. The sentence itself, and Mr. Ramanathan fully accepts this, cannot be said to be in anyway manifestly excessive. He relies upon her personal background as a reason why this Court can exercise clemency and suggests that we take a compassionate view.

8. As we have said, this was a serious robbery, it was domestic premises, violence was used. The 62 year old woman must have been very frightened indeed. Having given the matter our anxious consideration, we are not prepared to interfere. The application is, therefore, refused.

K. Ramanathan, Esq. (D.L.A.) for Applicant.

A.A. Bruce, Esq. & E. Sean, Esq. for Crown/Respondent.