Hui Yuet Sau v. The Queen

CACC000858/1969

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 858 OF 1969

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 22 January 1970

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to robbery with aggravation and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. He appealed against that sentence, but when he appeared before me he applied for leave to withdraw his application. There were, however, circumstances appearing on the record which suggested to me that a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment might possibly be unduly heavy in this case: there were, at least, matters which seemed to require further investigation. I therefore ordered an adjournment for a probation officer's report to be obtained. This is before me and the appellant has indicated that he no longer wishes to withdraw his appeal.

2. This is a type of case which is all too common in Hong Kong. At an early hour in the morning the appellant robbed a young woman on a staircase. At the time he was armed with a screwdriver with which he threatened the young woman. He was further armed with a hammer and when the woman entered a flat he forced his way in with her. He stole a sum of $7 in cash.

3. The circumstances which led me to think that another sentence might be appropriate were these. Some time ago there appeared to be reason to believe that the appellant was mentally disturbed - although a recent examination by a psychiatrist showed that he was not in need of treatment, despite the fact that he had suffered from depression due to financial difficulties and had apparently even considered suicide. Combined with this fact was the further fact that the woman who was robbed was in fact a near neighbour of the appellant and at first glance it appeared rather surprising that the appellant was prepared to run the risk of attacking a near neighbour. The probation officer's report suggests that the appellant did not recognize his victim and that accounts for this rather remarkable circumstance. Nevertheless the report is of considerable assistance to me in showing that the appellant has not been in trouble before and is by repute a quiet man: he appears to be a hard if not brilliant worker and he was, indeed, on his way to work at the time this offence was committed. It also appears that the appellant has had a hard time keeping his family of a wife and young son and that he has shown genuine regret for what he has done, while the victim and her family are disposed to take a sympathetic view so that there is no fear that the victim of the robbery will take the law into her own hands in the present case. The appellant has been in custody since the 1st November last year.

4. On the face of it a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for a robbery of this kind is not excessive but having regard to the personal circumstances of this appellant I have come to the conclusion that there is more likelihood of reformation if I make a probation order than if the appellant remains in prison and that I ought to make a probation order. I therefore propose to record a conviction but to release the appellant on probation for a term of 2 years upon the usual conditions.

22nd January, 1970.