Ng Tat-chor v. The Queen
|
CACC001122/1976
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A. Date of Judgment: 31st December, 1976. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant pleaded guilty to the following offences: (1) robbery, (2) wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, (3) shooting with intent to prevent lawful apprehension, (4) possession of arms without a licence, (5) possession of ammunition without a licence, and (6) a second offence of robbery. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for the first three offences and two years each for the offences of being in possession of arms and ammunition and the second robbery. The sentences on the two robbery charges and on the charge of wounding and the charge of shooting were ordered to be served consecutively, the other sentences were to be concurrent. The total sentence which the appellant had to serve was therefore seventeen years in all. 2. The two robberies were similar in kind. The appellant on each occasion acted alone and on each occasion he was armed with a .38 revolver. Shots were fired on each occasion and on the occasion of the first charge two Pakistani watchmen were wounded. That wounding forms the subject matter of the second charge. On that occasion the appellant ran away but was pursued by a police constable. The appellant turned and fired one shot at the police constable but missed him. He thereupon gave himself up which indeed he had to do because the policeman himself otherwise might have shot him, the appellant. That offence of shooting is the subject matter of the third charge. 3. We think that a proper sentence for a robbery in which a revolver is used is a sentence of at least eight years' imprisonment. We therefore think that the sentences on the first and sixth charges, the two counts of robbery, should be increased to eight years. Likewise, we think that the charge of wounding with intent, the second charge, for which a sentence of five years was passed in the court below should also be increased to eight years. We see no reason to interfere with the other three sentences and we would remark that a five year sentence for shooting with intent to prevent lawful apprehension (the third charge) is a proper sentence. However, we think that the totality of the sentences passed in the court below was excessive and so we will order the sentences which we have imposed in this court to run as follows: The sentence on the third charge of shooting with intent to evade lawful apprehension (five years) will be served consecutive to the sentence on the first charge of robbery (eight years). This means that the total sentence which the appellant must serve will be thirteen years. All the other sentences are to be served concurrently with the sentence passed on the first offence of robbery.
Representation: Miss M. Tam (D.L.A.) for Appellant. N. Macdougall for the Crown/Respondent. |