The Queen v. Chau Hing-chung
|
CACC001153/1983 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1983, No. 1153 (Criminal) BETWEEN
__________ Coram: Roberts, C.J., Huggins, V.-P. & Barker, J.A. Date: 11th January 1984 ____________ JUDGMENT ____________ Barker, J.A.: 1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences totalling in all fifteen and a half years. 2. The applicant pleaded guilty to five counts of robbery, upon which he was sentenced to eleven years imprisonment concurrent: to a further charge of conspiracy to rob upon which he was sentenced to eighteen months to run consecutively to the previous sentences of eleven years and to a charge of possession of arms and ammunition upon which he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment to run consecutively to the previous sentences. 3. There were cited to us two cases: NG Wai-ming & Others v. The Queen(1) and The Attorney v. CHAN Kin-chung & Another (2).In NG Wai-ming(1),there were two counts: one count of robbery and one of possession of a firearm. The sentence on the robbery charge was reduced from fifteen years to ten years and the possession of firearm was made concurrent. 4. The time has come, in our view, to say that, whether or not those sentences were correct in 1980, and this Court has no reason to suppose that they were not, they are not apposite in the climate of 1984. This Court must take every opportunity in its power to deter people not only from robbing but from robbing with the use of firearms. It is right in this case, as Mr. Hingorani has submitted to us, that although firearms were used in the sense of being used to threaten,they were not actually fired. Nevertheless, in our view, whatever may have been appropriate in 1980, people who use guns for the purpose of robbery in 1984 can expect heavier sentences. 5. If the robbery which was clearly intended in count 6 had been carried out it may well be that a proper sentence on all these six robberies would have been one of twelve and a half years. In fact the intended robbery on the conspiracy charge was not carried out because it was nipped in the bud by the arrest of the defendant. We see no reason to interfere with the sentence of eighteen months consecutive on the charge of conspiracy. 6. So far as the seventh charge is concerned - possession of arms and ammunition - in our view, the applicant was fortunate. If it stood alone the appropriate sentence for such an offence would be at least five years. Where a firearm is used in the course of a robbery and the defendant is separately charged with possession of the firearm, it lies in the discretion of the trial judge whether the sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively, but the total effective sentence should be a heavy one. In the present case, viewing the matter as a whole, we think the total sentence of fifteen and a half years is not a day too long. 7. This application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed. (1) [1980] H.K.L.R. 228 Representation: Mr. J. Hingorani assigned by D.L.A. for Applicant. Mr. J. Conyngham for Crown /Respondent. |