Cheng Tin Fat v. The Queen
|
CACC000626/1973 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 626 OF 1973 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Huggins & McMullin, JJ. Date of Judgment: 13th December 1973. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins, J.: 1. This is an appeal against sentence. The Appellant was charged on two charges of robbery. These charges, as we have already indicated in the previous appeal, were tried separately and the present appeal is strictly against only the sentence of 4 ½ years' imprisonment passed on the first charge: there was no appeal against the sentence of two years' imprisonment imposed on the second charge or against a sentence of twelve months' imprisonment which was imposed as a result of the reactivation of a suspended sentence of twelve months' imprisonment imposed on 16th November 1971. However, we are disposed to consider all these sentences and I think counsel for the Crown is not opposing that course. 2. We have already dealt with the facts of the second charge, which was a robbery of a woman who had just drawn money from the bank. In the present case the Appellant attacked a man from behind and held him round the nook and, when the man struggled, he punched him violently on the mouth. This man also had just been to the bank and was carrying $14,000, which the Appellant stole. The suspended sentence was one for burglary. The learned judge who passed sentence on the second charge took into account the fact that a sentence of 4 ½ years had already been imposed together with twelve months for the burlgary and he expressly said that he scaled down his sentence from 4 ½ years to 2 years so that the overall sentence would be kept within reasonable bounds. That was entirely proper. Also, in our view, the sentences on the other two charges were entirely proper when they were considered in isolation, as the learned judge had to consider them. The Appellant had committed another offence during the period of suspension of the twelve months' imprisonment and there was good reason for reactivating that sentence. 4 ½ years' imprisonment was not an improper sentence for the substantive offence. 3. However, this Appellant has complained of the totality of these sentences, which comes to 7 ½ years, and we must confess to some misgivings about that total period. It must at the same time be emphasised that no one could have received greater leniency from the courts in the past than this Appellant: for robbery with aggravation he was placed on 18 months' probation; two months later, for larceny, he was sent to the Training Centre; four months later, for claiming to be a mamber of a triad society, he was bound over in the sum of $500 for three years; and when within that period of three years he committed offences of burglary and taking a conveyance without authority he was sentenced only to a fine and a suspended sentence of imprisonment. 4. It is, therefore, not without some hesitation that we interfere in the present case. However, we think that justice will be done if we quash the order reactivating the suspended sentence for burglary, bearing in mind that a substantial part of the period of suspension had elapsed before the further offences were committed. We emphasise that we think the learned judge could not be criticised for reactivating the sentence as he did, when he did, and the Appellant may consider himself lucky that we have been willing to interfere. 13th December 1973. Representation: ...(illegible) in person Dockett for respondent |