Tsang Hon-keung and Others v. The Queen
|
CACC000892/1975 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 892 OF 1975 -----------------
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins and Pickering, JJ. Date of Judgment: 5th December, 1975. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. In this case the three appellants pleaded guilty to one offence of robbery and were sentenced to four years' imprisonment each. They appeal against these sentences. 2. On the 12th July, 1975 the three appellants, together with another man not before this court, entered a goldsmith's shop in Shanghai Street, Kowloon. Each of the four persons was armed: one, with what is described as a cap pistol and the others with either an axe or a knife. The persons who were then in the shop were ordered not to move and were threatened with the weapons. Two of the party then smashed the glass of the show cases and took away some gold ornaments. At this point the police arrived, one of the employees of the shop having pressed an alarm bell. It is apparent that the pistol which was held by one of the robbers was discharged and a police officer also fired, as a result of which the first appellant was wounded. 3. In addition to the charge of robbery the appellants were charged with a second count of being in possession of a firearm at the time of committing a robbery contrary to section 31(2) of the Arms and Ammunition Ordinance. However, during the course of the trial the three appellants elected to plead guilty to the robbery charge whereupon the Crown did not proceed with the second charge of being in possession of a firearm. 4. It would appear that the district judge sentenced the appellants for the robbery not taking into account the fact that one of the robbers was armed with a pistol: and that he passed a sentence of only four years on each appellant, because of the withdrawal of the second count by the Crown. 5. The facts of the robbery which were admitted by each appellant to be true when he pleaded guilty included the fact that this was an armed robbery, that one of the robbers was armed with a pistol which was used to threaten the persons then in the shop, and that the pistol was fired. 6. There is no doubt that this was a case of armed robbery and that a pistol was used. We think that this should have been reflected in the sentences. 7. Ordinarily, the sentence for the offence of armed robbery where a firearm is used is a term of at least eight years. We think that the sentences of four years in this case are far too lenient. The appellants are first offenders, are young men and they pleaded guilty. In all the circumstances, we substitute for the sentences of four years a sentence of six years in each case. The appeals are therefore allowed and the sentences set aside and a sentence of six years substituted therefor in respect of each of the appellants.
Representation: Appellants in person. Reid for crown. |