Wong Kim Ming and Another v. The Queen
|
CACC000947/1977
Coram: Briggs, C.J. , Pickering, J.A. and Leonard, J. Date of Judgment: 15th November, 1977. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The two appellants each pleaded guilty to four charges of robbery, two charges of criminal damage to property and to being carried in a conveyance without authority. The first appellant was sentenced to a total of three and a half years' imprisonment. The second appellant was sentenced to a total of four years' imprisonment. Both appellants appeal against their sentences. 2. Four friends (hereinafter called 'the victims') were sleeping in two cars on the night of July 26th, 1977 at Fei Ngor Shan Peak when they were woken up by the appellants and two other persons not before the court. The appellants' party questioned the four victims, asked them why they were there and demanded to see their identity cards. The appellants' party then left in another car. 3. The four victims decided to leave that place so they drove their two cars down the hill. They noticed a car in front of them which suddenly stopped blocking the whole road. The victims had to stop their cars as well. 4. Thereupon the occupants of the car in front who were the appellants' party dismounted from their car and went up to the victims' cars. Each one of the appellants was armed with a long knife and they robbed the four victims of various sums of money and other personal effects. 5. The ignition keys of the victims' two cars were taken and the tyres of their cars were slashed. The appellants' party then drove off. 6. The appellants pleaded guilty as we have said and also admitted that the car which they had used in this incident had been stolen by one of their party who was not before the court. 7. The first appellant was aged 17 at the time and has a clear record. The second appellant was 19 and was put on probation in 1974 (when he was only 16) for burglary. It appears that he had previously been placed on probation for an offence in 1972 but the nature of that offence on that occasion is unknown. 8. When the case first came before us we ordered that reports should be submitted to the court by a probation, officer and by the Commissioner of Prisons. 9. The probation officer did not recommend probation for the first appellant. He was found unfit for detention in a detention centre but was recommended for detention in a training centre. 10. These were very serious offences but we think that it is possible that the first appellant was led into trouble by the others. He was not the driver and at least the second appellant was the older man. In addition, he has frankly admitted his part in the incident. 11. In the event, we allow the appeal of the first appellant to the extent that the sentences imposed in the court below are quashed and an order be made of detention in a training centre. 12. The second appellant's appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Representation: Appellants in person. Graham for the Crown/Respondent. |