The Queen v. Cheung Chi-wah and Another
|
CACC000673/1995 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1995, No.673
------------------------------- Coram: Hon. Power, V.-P. and Mortimer, J.A. Date of Hearing: 16 February 1996 Date of Judgment: 16 February 1996 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Power, V.-P.(giving the judgment of the Court): 1. The two applicants faced three charges of robbery and the 1st applicant faced one of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. They pleaded guilty to those charges and were sentenced by District Judge Beeson to a total of four years on the robbery charges and, in the case of the 1st applicant, to six months on the charge of assaulting a police officer. They now seek leave to appeal against those sentences urging that no one was injured in the robbery and that they were influenced by drugs at the time the offences were committed. The 1st applicant further states that he didn't intend to assault the police officer but that the phone accidentally slipped out of his hand and hit the officer. We reject that suggestion which was entirely contrary to what was admitted at trial. 2. The facts of the first robbery charge were that on 17th January a Madam Wong and her 8-year-old daughter were entering a lift in the Chun Shek Estate. Others entered and left except the two applicants who declared robbery, stopped the lift, pushed Madam Wong to the ground and further assaulted her. One of them threatened to take out a knife. Madam Wong was, understandably, very frightened and one applicant relieved her of her necklace, a jade pendant, three gold rings and a gold bracelet. Her purse, which contained $329.50 in cash, was also taken. They were, following that offence, apprehended by an alert police officer who had seen the lift stop for a suspiciously long time on the 17th floor. When they were challenged by the police officer and others who had come to his assistance, the 1st applicant, when attempting to escape, threw his mobile telephone hitting one of the officers on the chest. That was on 17th January. 3. The second robbery charge occurred three days before, on 14th January, when a Madam Cheung had entered a lift in the same estate. The two applicants followed her into the lift and, having relieved her of her gold ring, a gold necklace and a heart shape pendant, fled. The value of those two articles of jewellery were $3,000. 4. Some four weeks before, on 18th November, a Madam Chan King-tai and her daughter had entered a lift in the Chuk Yuen South Estate. The two applicants entered that lift, caused it to stop, declared robbery and relieved Madam Chan of $1,400 in cash and a gold bracelet valued at $3,300. Those were the facts of the third robbery charge. 5. The trial judge when sentencing bore in mind the criminal records of the applicants. The 1st applicant had previous convictions of attempted theft and wounding and had twice been sent to a training centre. The 2nd applicant had previous convictions of theft, attempted theft and possession of dangerous drugs and had been placed on probation and sent to drug addiction treatment centre. 6. The trial judge said when sentencing:
She considered Drug Addiction Treatment Centre, Detention Centre and Training Centre but was satisfied that there was no suitable alternative to an immediate custodial sentence. She stated that when sentencing she bore in mind the guilty pleas and the totality principle. She sentenced each of the applicants to two years on the first robbery charge and to one year on each of the other two robbery charges and ordered that those sentences be made consecutive. She sentenced the 1st applicant to six months on the assault charge. 7. The applicants have said nothing today which in any way suggests that those sentences were not proper ones. There were three separate lift robbery offences on defenceless females two of whom were accompanied by a child. Such conduct is all too common in Hong Kong and the courts must when sentencing bear in mind the need to deter others who might be like minded. The applications are refused.
Representation: Mr. W.S. Cheung (Crown Prosecutor) for the Respondent. Applicants in person. 3 - - |