Yu Kit-lun v. The Queen

CACC000948/1971

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 948 OF 1971

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

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

Coram: Leonard J. in Court.

Date of Judgment: 17 January 1972

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an appeal against sentence. In the court below the appellant a young man of 25 had pleaded guilty to two charges of robbery and had requested that a further charge of robbery be taken into consideration. The appellant had been arrested in connection with another offence and on being questioned by the police had admitted three robberies. He was charged with two of these. They had never been reported to the police by the victims of them and would never have been discovered had it not been for the fact that the appellant admitted to them while in custody.

2. Two wristwatches which had been stolen in the course of the robberies were recovered as a result of information given by the appellant and eventually their owners were traced by the police.

3. The robberies had taken place when the appellant approached the victim from behind and pressed a pen into his back and threatened to stab him.

4. The learned magistrate had sentenced him to 15 months' imprisonment on each charge the sentences to run consecutively, so that is a total of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment.

5. On appeal the appellant complained that he had never been given a chance. This was not unnatural in that the first time he came to the attention of the courts he was charged with 3 offences of robbery and one of simple larceny. For these offences he had been sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment. He had a further conviction for loitering and possession of an instrument fix for unlawful purposes for which offences he had been sentenced to 5 months' imprisonment.

6. In all the circumstances I have no doubt but that sentences totally 2 years and 6 months were manifestly excessive. I accordingly allowed this appeal to the extent that the sentence on each charge was increased to 18 months' imprisonment but ordered that the sentences should be concurrent because although the offences were separate, the manner of their discovery appeared to me to require concurrent sentences.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

E. So, C.C. for respondent.

Oral judgment reduced into writing.