Chan Kwok Fai v. The Queen

Case No.CACC 82/1975
Court
Court of Appeal
Date05 May 1975
Judge
Case Document
100%

CACC000082/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 82 OF 1975

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

BETWEEN    
  CHAN KWOK FAI Appellant
  and  
  THE QUEEN Respondent

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

Coram: Huggins & McMullin, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 5th May 1975.

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

JUDGMENT

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

Huggins, J.:

1. This is an appeal against a sentence of 2 ½ years' imprisonment for robbery. It was, as the learned judge said, a type of offence which is all too prevalent at the present time. Three men, including this Appellant, entered a lift and there robbed two other passengers. Fortunately the caretaker of the building was very much on the qui vive and he took steps to stop the escape of the culprits. However, they forced him to open the main door of the building, but the Appellant was caught outside. One of the robbers - but there is no evidence it was the Appellant - punched the caretaker because he was too slow in opening the gate. Originally this Appellant was charged with an assault occasioning actual bodily harm in respect of that assault but the Crown offered no evidence on that charge.

2. On the face of it this was a proper sentence and in line with that normally imposed for this type of offence. It is to be noted that the Appellant had two previous convictions, one when he was conditionally discharged for membership of a triad society and one when he was sent to a training centre for possession of an offensive weapon. That was in 1972. The Commissioner of Prisons has supplied a report which is unusually favourable to the Appellant. In spite of his previous history the Commissioner indicated his willingness to take this Appellant back to the training centre. The learned judge thought that the seriousness of the offence outweighed the personal matters relating to this Appellant and it is with some hesitation that we differ from him on that. Nevertheless, on due consideration, we think that this is a case where we can properly order that the Appellant be sent back to the training centre.

3. We allow the appeal and so order.

5th May 1975.

Representation: