Lau Chun-sum v. The Queen

Case No.CACC 95/1977

Court

Court of Appeal

Date13 Jun 1977

Judge—

Case Document

100%

CACC000095/1977

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

	Criminal Appeal
	1977 No. 95

BETWEEN
	LAU Chun-sum	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins, J.A. and McMullin, J.

Date of Judgment: 13th June, 1977.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant was found guilty of one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, for which he was sentenced to one year's imprisonment; one count of wounding, for which he was sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment; and one count of robbery, for which he was sentenced to a further two and a half years' imprisonment. The sentences were all ordered to run consecutively, thus the appellant was ordered to serve six years' imprisonment in all. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentences.

2. We dismissed his appeal against conviction.

3. The three offences for which the appellant was found guilty occurred on three separate days and the victim in each case was a different person.

4. The appellant has a clear record. He is 30 years old, married with four children, the eldest of whom is 8 years old.

5. The evidence showed the first offence, for which he was found guilty, concerned a quarrel with another man, with whose father the appellant had previously quarrelled. The second offence concerned a quarrel in a restaurant in which the victim was struck by a chopper. And the third offence concerned the robbery of a woman in an apartment house.

6. The gravamen of the first two offences is that the appellant was not acting alone, he was one of several persons who inflicted violence on the victim in each case. However, taking all the circumstances into account, we think that the overall period of imprisonment which, as we have said, is six years is excessive. For that reason, and bearing in mind the clear record of the appellant, we think that justice would best be done if the sentence of one year on the first charge is reduced to one of six months, and the sentence of two and a half years on the third charge, which is a charge of robbery, be reduced to twelve months. The sentence on the wounding charge, that is the second charge, of two and a half years will remain. The sentences are to be served consecutively. This means that the overall sentence to be served by the appellant will be one of four years and not six years, and we so order.

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	President

Representation:

Eddis (H.H. Lau & Co.) for appellant.

Little for crown.