Read the full judgment text of CACC 000681/1995 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 March 1996 before Yang CJ, Power VP, Wong J.
Criminal law – robbery – domestic premises – group of four intruders with knives – victims including young children – separate lift robbery in public housing estate – applicants for leave to appeal against conviction and/or sentence – whether sentences within acceptable range – whether grounds of appeal against conviction disclose arguable error – whether complaint of inadequate trial representation requires adjournment for affidavits. Charge 1 arose from a night-time robbery on 3 June 1994 at the home of Mr Tsang Chum Wo, where the four applicants entered pretending to seek dental treatment, displayed knives, bound the couple with adhesive tape and stole cash and jewellery while three daughters aged seven to thirteen were herded into a room; the victims could make no identification. Charge 2 concerned a robbery on 27 June 1994 in which D1 and D2 robbed Madam Sae Heng Heng Huang inside a lift in King Fu House, Shan King Estate, Tuen Mun, using some violence. D1 and D3 pleaded guilty to Charge 1; D2 and D4 were convicted after trial, relying on the evidence of D3 (who turned Crown witness) and cautioned statements from D2 and D4. The trial judge imposed 5 years on Charge 1 and 1 year consecutive on Charge 2 on D1; 6 years on Charge 1 and 1 year consecutive on Charge 2 on D2; 4 years on Charge 1 on D3; and 6 years on Charge 1 on D4. On the application of D1 against sentence, the court noted his youth (15 at the time) and the gravity of the offences—a night-time domestic knife robbery with child victims and a prevalent lift robbery in housing estates—and found nothing in the application. On D3's application against sentence, the court held that, although the 4-year term was a little on the high side, it remained within the acceptable range given his age, guilty plea and assistance as a Crown witness. On D4's application against conviction, the court held that none of his grounds (alleged involuntariness of his cautioned statement, D3's alleged desire to shift blame, and case deferrals) gave cause for concern, the trial judge having carefully considered D3's evidence and the admissibility of the cautioned statements; his sentence application also failed given the seriousness of Charge 1 and his age of 20. D2's application, which included a complaint that his defence counsel in the court below failed to serve his interest adequately, was adjourned to allow affidavits to be filed by D2 and his former counsel. Outcome: applications of D1, D3 and D4 dismissed; D2's application adjourned. Sentences under appeal: D1 – 5 years plus 1 year consecutive (total 6 years); D2 – 6 years plus 1 year consecutive (total 7 years, under appeal); D3 – 4 years; D4 – 6 years.
Legal issues: Whether D3's sentence of 4 years for Charge 1 robbery is excessive · Whether D4's grounds of appeal against conviction have merit · Whether D1's sentences (5 years plus 1 year consecutive) are excessive · Whether D4's sentence of 6 years is appropriate · Whether D2's complaint of inadequate representation warrants adjournment
Outcome: Applications for leave to appeal by D1 (sentence), D3 (sentence) and D4 (conviction and sentence) are dismissed; D2's application (conviction and sentence) is adjourned for affidavits to be filed by him and his former counsel.