Lui Chun-hung v. The Queen

Case No.CACC 802/1976

Court

Court of Appeal

Date16 Nov 1976

Judge—

Case Document

100%

CACC000802/1976

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	1976 No. 802
on appeal from the High Court	(Criminal)

BETWEEN:
	LUI Chun-hung	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Pickering, J.A., & McMullin, Acting J.A.

Date of Judgment: 16th November, 1976.

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of arson and five charges of manslaughter and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals against his sentence.

2. The appellant had a fight with one CHEUNG Ho-sang. He was the unsuccessful party in this fight and some days later arranged that other persons, members of the infamous 14K Triad Society, of which he himself was a member, should set the premises with which Cheung was connected, on fire. This was done, with the result that five people died.

3. In the case of FONG Lung-fai v. The Queen ⁽¹⁾, the Full Court laid down the circumstances in which a sentence to life imprisonment is justified. In effect, the Full Court in that case accepted the ratio decidendi of R. v. Hodgson ⁽²⁾. The headnote of that case reads:-

"A sentence of life imprisonment is justified when:-

	(1)	the offence or offences are in themselves grave enough to require a very long sentence;
	(2)	it appears from the nature of the offences or from the defendant's history that he is unstable and likely to commit such offences in the future; and
	(3)	if the offences are committed the consequences to others may be specially injurious, as in the case of sexual offences of crimes of violence."

4. The Fong Case ⁽¹⁾ was at the time popularly known as the "goldfish man" case. The appellant in that case was sentenced to life imprisonment in respect of thirteen charges to which he pleaded guilty. The first ten of these charges involved carnal knowledge of girls under thirteen years of age. There was no evidence of mental abnormality of the appellant. However, the court held that the first ten offences, to which the appellant pleaded guilty, showed at least instability in the character of the appellant and also the need to protect the public from him, and so the Full Court in that case upheld the sentence of life imprisonment.

5. In the present case, there is again no evidence of mental abnormality. The appellant is aged 33. His act of revenge which resulted in the deaths of five persons shows a marked lack of maturity. But it is not evidence of instability of character so as to bring this case within the ambit of what may be called the rule in R. v. Hodgson ⁽²⁾.

6. For this reason, the appeal against sentence is allowed to the extent that the sentence of life imprisonment is quashed and a sentence of eighteen years' imprisonment is substituted therefor.

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	President.

Representation:

van Buuren (D.L.A.) for appellant.

Whetter for the CrownsRespondent.

(1) (1968) H.K.L.R. 249

(2) (1968) 52 C.A.R. 113.