The Queen v. Kong Po Kei
|
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL No. 77 of 1987 BETWEEN
Coram: Kempster J.A., Penlington and de Basto JJ. Date of hearing: 13th May, 1987 Date of delivery of Judgment: 13th May, 1987 _____________________ J U D G M E N T _____________________ de Basto J.: 1. On the 5th of September of last year, the applicant was convicted after trial in the District Court on four counts; two of robbery, one of claiming to be a member of a triad society and a further count of blackmail. All were closely related in time having been committed during May last year. On the 10th of that month the applicant and three male companions approached the victim and accused him of master-minding a robbery involving $600 in Taipo of which the applicant was the victim. The victim denied the allegation but the applicant and one of his companions told him they were members of the 14K Triad Society and demanded that the victim should give them $600. The victim paid out. One of the applicants' companions also demanded that the victim pay the applicant $5,400 as a “Lai See” fee to settle the score failing which he would not be allowed to operate his stall. The victim paid this to the applicant, through one of his friends, on the 14th of May last year. 2. On the 17th of May, the victim and five companions confronted the applicant to demand the return of $6,000 whereupon the applicant returned $1,500 to the victim. 3. The last count on which the applicant was convicted charged the second robbery. On the 18th of May last year, the applicant approached the victim with ten male companions and the victim was ordered to squat, his trousers were searched and the applicant made off with $950. The victim complained to the police. 4. For the first three offences, which occurred on the 10th of May, Judge Blackwell sentenced the applicant to two and a half years, nine months and three years respectively; all to run concurrently. In respect of the robbery on the 18th of May, the applicant was sentenced to three years to run consecutively to the concurrent sentences imposed for the offences committed on the 10th. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against these sentences. 5. As the applicant had not pleaded guilty, the Judge said that there was no question of a discount arising on that score. The Judge said he took into consideration that no actual violence had been inflicted on the victim, merely the threat of it - it follows that the Judge took into consideration that the victim suffered no physical injury. 6. We think that the aggregate sentence of six years is excessive. We do not propose to interfere with the individual sentences imposed but think that two of the three years imposed for the second robbery should run concurrently with the sentences imposed for the offences on the 10th of May. The application is allowed. We treat this as a hearing of the appeal which is also allowed in that two years of the sentence in respect of the second robbery will run concurrently with the first three sentences; thus providing a total sentence of four years. Mr. I. D. Cross, Ag. Sr. Asst. Crown Prosecutor for Crown. Mr. Christopher Grounds (D.L.A.) for Applicant. |