Kam Hung and Another v. The Queen
|
CACC000651/1978
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Leonard & Zimmern, JJ. Date of Judgment: 18th October, 1978. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellants pleaded guilty to three counts of robbery and were sentenced to 5 ½ years' imprisonment on each charge. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. They appeal against those sentences. 2. The three robberies were part of one incident. A party of five young men, of whom the appellants formed part, tied up and gagged and blindfolded no less than six persons in a private apartment. The victims managed to free themselves after having been tied up and gagged for about eleven hours. The alarm was given and the two appellants were captured as they fled from the scene of the crime. The other robbers escaped. 3. This was a particularly bad case of robbery. The victims were threatened with knives and though no one was physically injured, they were subjected to fear and humiliation. As we have said, they were tied up for a period of eleven hours. They were also gagged and blind-folded. 4. The first appellant has a clear record. He was 35 at the time of the trial. It was said in the court below that he was not the ringleader and it was pointed out that a considerable portion of the property that was stolen was recovered. Despite this, we think that the sentences of 5 ½ years' were appropriate in this case. We have repeatedly said that this Court is not prepared to interfere with sentences up to 6 years for this type of offence. Robbery is always a serious offence, never more so when it occurs in the privacy of a man's home and is accompanied by circumstances, as here, involving the tying up and gagging of the victims. 5. The application of the first appellant is therefore dismissed. We adjourned the application of the second appellant and asked that reports be submitted by a probation officer and the Commissioner of Prisons. It appears from these that the second appellant was only 17 years old at the time of the robbery. He has a clear record. There was no evidence that he was a ringleader, and his counsel told the court below that he only took a minor part in the crime: being the look-out. His family circumstances are unfortunate. He has no father, and his mother is tubercular. Due to the worry that this case has caused her she has suffered a relapse. The appellant works in a restaurant on a day to day basis. He was apparently led into this crime by acquaintances of stronger mentality than himself. 6. 5 ½ years is a very long sentence for a young man of 17 who has no previous convictions. And the reports submitted to the Court are favourable to the appellant. 7. We think that the sentence passed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances of the case. And that justice will best be done if the application for leave to appeal is granted and the appeal is allowed to the extent that the sentence of 5 ½ years' imprisonment is quashed. In lieu thereof the appellant is ordered to be detained in a training centre under the Training Centres Ordinance.
Representation: R. Tong (D.L.A.) for both Appellants Ingham for the Crown/Respondent |