|
HCCC137/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 137 OF 2010
-----------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
Lee Pau-chuen |
|
| ----------------- |
| Before: |
Deputy High Court Judge Toh |
| Date: |
26 January 2011 at 11.48 am |
| Present: |
Mr Michael J B Arthur, on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Richard David Donald, instructed by Herbert Tsoi & Partners, for the Accused |
| Offence: |
Conspiracy to rob (串謀搶劫) |
---------------------------------
Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case
---------------------------------
COURT: As I have said, this defendant has played a very important role in this count of conspiracy to rob, as he was the person who had supplied the information of the potential victim to the 1st defendant.
At the time he furnished this information, he knew that the 1st defendant had obtained a stun gun to commit the robbery, and therefore, his role in this conspiracy is an important one.
On the other hand, I recognise the fact that subsequently, the defendant had a pang of conscience and wanted to dissuade the 1st defendant from carrying out the robbery, and in order to dissociate himself, he then went to Shenzhen.
However, the fact remains that he was an important part of the conspiracy, and this court has to recognise that role.
I do accept that he was remorseful and had co‑operated with the police. More than that, he had pleaded guilty and had given evidence in this trial against the 1st defendant, and his evidence was important as against the 1st defendant, and I agree with the observation that Mr Donald said Mr Arthur made, that he gave significant evidence which contributed to the guilty verdict of the jury.
However, I am of the view that an appropriate starting point in his case should be the same as for the 1st defendant, which is one of 10 years’ imprisonment.
However, in recognition of the mitigating factors in his case, particularly his significant contribution to the guilty verdicts in this case, I will reduce the sentence to one of 4½ years.
So you will go to prison for 4½ years. Yes, please sit down.
I think arrangements would be made, is that correct, that he would serve his imprisonment away from the rest of the defendants in this trial?
MR ARTHUR: I don’t know that, your Ladyship. Would you require...
COURT: Perhaps I could ask the Senior Correctional Services Officer.
SENIOR OFFICER: Yes, my Lady.
COURT: Yes. I would order and I would ask the Commissioner to take into account this: that the defendant Lee Pau‑chuen should serve his imprisonment away from the other four defendants in this trial. Is that possible?
SENIOR OFFICER: I think my Lady can make that order for the consideration of the Commissioner.
COURT: All right. So I do so order, and I ask that the Commissioner please take it into serious account.
SENIOR OFFICER: Thank you, my Lady.
COURT: Thank you.
Defendant's application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed by Court of Appeal. Please refer to CACC48/2011 dated 19 August 2011 |