Mau Cheung-lung and Others v. The Queen
|
CACC000850/1978
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A. Date of Judgment: 9 January 1979 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The four appellants were all convicted of one count of robbery. In addition, the first appellant was found guilty of one offence of wounding. The first, third and fourth appellants were each sentenced to ten years' imprisonment on the robbery count, and the second appellant was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment on the same count. In addition, the first appellant was sentenced to one year's imprisonment on the wounding charge, consecutive to the ten years passed on the robbery charge. The appellants appealed against their conviction and their sentences. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction. 2. This was a serious case of robbery. The appellants, two of whom were armed with knives, forced their way into premises which were used as a shop and living quarters. They closed the door behind them, which automatically locked. Mr. Chan, the owner of the premises, and his wife, and two fokis were in the premises at the time of the entry. The appellants threatened the inmates of the premises. They slapped the face of Mrs. Chan, who was pregnant. They tied up Mr. Chan and the two fokis and ransacked the place, seizing a considerable sum of money. In addition, the first appellant stabbed Mr. Chan in the cheek with a knife. A stall-holder nearby realized that something was afoot on these premises, so he summoned the police. The police were unable to enter because the door was locked. However, Mr. Chan managed to untie himself and opened the door. The appellants were then arrested. 3. All the appellants have previous convictions and had only recently been released from prison. The first appellant has previous convictions for robbery, attempted murder and affray. The second appellant has several previous convictions, including a robbery in 1975. The third appellant has a very long record, largely concerned with offences concerning dangerous drugs and offences involving motor vehicles. The fourth appellant has one previous conviction for robbery, for which he was given seven years' imprisonment. 4. We have repeatedly said in this court that where private premises are invaded by armed robbers, the court will pass a severe sentence and we have said on more than one occasion, that we will not interfere with a sentence of six years' imprisonment in such a case. We do not think it proper or possible to lay down a specific number of years as an appropriate sentence. The sentence in each case must depend on the facts of the particular robbery. 5. The present case is, as we have said, a very serious case and deserving of condign punishment. However, we think that in the present case, the sentences of ten years' imprisonment for robbery are excessive. We therefore reduced each of the sentences for robbery by two years. The first appellant will therefore serve eight years' imprisonment on the robbery count, with one year consecutive on the wounding count. It is proper that there should be a consecutive sentence for this count as the wounding was a deliberate stabbing of Mr. Chan, who was helpless at the time. The third and fourth appellants will each serve eight years' imprisonment on the robbery count. And the second appellant will serve six years' imprisonment on the robbery count. The appeals of the appellants are allowed to this extent.
Representation: Appellants in person Alderdice for crown |