Read the full judgment text of CAAR 9/2008 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 20 October 2009 before Yeung JA, Lunn J, Wright J.
Criminal law – robbery – use of imitation firearm – sentence review under section 81A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance – starting point for robbery with imitation firearm – distinction from Mo Kwong-sang guidelines applicable to knives and other dangerous weapons – whether further discount beyond one-third for guilty plea is warranted – whether sentence for using imitation firearm to resist arrest should be consecutive to robbery sentence – whether sentence should be consecutive to earlier term being served – the Mo Kwong-sang guidelines apply only to knives and other dangerous weapons, not to firearms for which severer sentences are imposed – Court of Appeal has consistently adopted a 10-year starting point for robbery involving imitation firearms, as affirmed in Yu Tai Wing, Huang Jianfeng, Mak Chi Ho and AG v Ng Hung-kei – the one-third discount is the high watermark for a guilty plea entered in good time and subsumes admissions to police at the scene and station – personal difficulty and financial hardship are not mitigation for robbery with imitation firearms – the 42-month sentence was manifestly inadequate – application allowed – 1st charge (robbery): 6 years; 2nd charge (using imitation firearm to resist arrest): 4 years, with 6 months consecutive to 1st charge – total 6½ years – ordered consecutive to the 13 months already being served for theft and common assault committed on 30 January 2008 – offences committed whilst on bail.
Legal issues: Applicability of Mo Kwong-sang sentencing guidelines to robbery with firearms · Proper starting point for robbery with imitation firearm · Whether an additional six-month discount beyond the one-third guilty plea discount was warranted · Whether the second charge sentence should be consecutive to the first · Whether the new sentence should run consecutively to the 13-month sentence being served
Outcome: Application for review of sentence allowed; 42-month sentence quashed and substituted with a total of 6½ years' imprisonment, to run consecutively to the 13 months' imprisonment already being served.
Cited by 5 cases · Cites 4 cases