HKSAR v. Tsui Kit

CACC000648/1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No.648
(Criminal)

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

Coram: Hon. Power, Ag. Chief Judge, H.C., Stuart-Moore , J.A. & Cheung, J.

Date of Hearing: 18 February 1998

Date of Judgment: 18 February 1998

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Power, Ag. Chief Judge H.C. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This applicant, together with one Yam Chik-fung, faced one count of robbery. He appeared before Deputy Judge Gill in the High Court and pleaded guilty to that count. He was sentenced to imprisonment for six years. He now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

2. When sentencing, the trial judge said:

"The prosecution's summary of facts, with which they both agree, states that the defendants, who were later found to be illegal immigrants from PRC, entered without authority a residential flat in the early hours of one morning. They disturbed one of the occupants, a young woman who was asleep in her bedroom. One, D1, put a chopper to her neck and demanded money. He took $40 from her wallet but wanted more. The other, D2, then tied her up and pocketed jewellery taken from a bedside table.

The young woman tried to alert her brother who was sharing another bedroom with his girlfriend. For this she was slapped on the face a few times and ordered to be quiet. Her brother was woken up by the disturbance but was confronted by D2 who was then armed with the chopper. There was a struggle and the brother was cut before he was subdued. Both he and the girlfriend were also tied up. Money from her handbag was taken and so was more found hidden in a wardrobe. They ransacked the room, taking what they could. Then they made off, leaving the chopper behind."

3. This was, it is clear from those agreed facts, a bad case of robbery. The victims were menaced with a chopper and, indeed, one of them was cut with a chopper. They were tied up and their premises were ransacked. The perpetrators took all they could find that was portable and of value.

4. As the judge pointed out, robbery carries a life sentence at its maximum.

5. The applicant does not seek to deny the admitted facts but urges that he played a lesser part in the wounding than that played by the 2nd defendant. He was, however, dealt with upon the basis that he was equally culpable and the judge was right to deal with him upon that basis. It was clearly a joint enterprise throughout in which he fully participated.

6. The only matter that exercises out mind is whether the starting point of nine years adopted by the trial judge was excessive. It was at the top of the range but was, we are satisfied, within that range. The discount of three years was proper and final sentence of six years is one about which no complaint can be properly made.

7. The application is dismissed.

Representation:

Mr. F. Veltro, S.G.C. (D.P.P.) for the Respondent.

Applicant in person.