Lau Hon Kam and Another v. The Queen

CACC000011/1972

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 1972

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

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

Coram: Huggins & Leonard, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 20th March, 1972.

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

JUDGMENT

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

Huggins, J.:

1. These two Appellants were convicted on their own confessions of robbery. They attacked a woman in broad daylight near her home: the 1st Appellant pointed a knife at her, the second grabbed her neck and threatened that if she did not hand over her purse she would be stabbed to death. In the course of the incident the victim's left hand was cut by the knife held by the 1st Appellant. Thanks to the intervention of two members of the public the Appellants were arrested.

2. Counsel for the Appellants upon their appeal against sentence has very fairly said that in the ordinary way the sentence of four years' imprisonment would not be excessive, but he submits that having regard to the history of these two men some leniency could be shown.

3. The view of the learned judge was that these offences justified the maximum possible sentence of five years' imprisonment. However, he took into account the fact that they had pleaded guilty and passed a sentence in the District Court - four years' imprisonment. If that was the only reason for the reduction, it was a generous reduction for a plea of guilty. The judge also commented that he did not take into account the cut inflicted on the victim's hand because it was, as he said, "an accident". That also was perhaps a generous way of looking at it in that it was only "an accident" which resulted from the Appellants' having unlawfully threatened this woman with a knife.

4. However, the counsel has drawn our attention to the fact that these two men both started their criminal careers and were given substantial sentences at a very early age. The 2nd Appellant, in particular, was sentenced to two years in a reformatory at the age of twelve, then, having been released on a special direction, was given a further two years in a reformatory within a matter of five months and by the age of thirteen, upon his fourth conviction, was sentenced to six weeks' hard labour, since when he has been in and out of prison at regular intervals, having now a total of 26 appearances before the court, including a previous conviction for robbery with aggravation and possession of an offensive weapon. The record of the 1st Appellant shows a remarkable similarity.

5. There is no doubt that shortly after the war sentences were very much heavier than they have been in recent years, and the types of sentence available to the courts were not as wide as they are at the present time. We agree with learned counsel that it may be the Appellants have had a hard time in that they have not had the opportunities which they would have had had they been born a few years later. However, we have considered this matter very carefully and we have come to the conclusion that we cannot now make any allowance for the previous harshness that they have suffered beyond the reduction which has already been made from five years to four years. These offences are far too prevalent and we think it is our duty to support the judges and magistrates in the attempts they are making to stop this present wave of violence.

6. We cannot say that sentences of four years' imprisonment are manifestly excessive and the appeals are dismissed.

20th March, 1972.

Representation: