The Queen v. Tang Cheuk-lun and Another

CAAR000013/1984

BETWEEN

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

Coram: Hon. Yang, Silke & Barker JJ.A.

Date of  hearing: 9th October, 1984.

Date of delivery of judgment: 9th October, 1984.

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Yang, J.A.:

1. This is the Attorney General's application for a review of sentence. The facts of this case are relatively straightforward.

2. On the 7th November last year the victim Mr. Yip Ho who was employed as a shroff at the Crystal Hall Restaurant was on his way to the bank carrying with him a large quantity of cash in a travelling bag. When he emerged from the lift on his way to the bank, he was confronted by the two accused. The second accused pushed a piece of cloth containing pepper into his eyes and the first accused produced what appeared to be a pistol and said, "Don't move. Robbery. Don't shout. Shoot if you shout". It was at this point that the second accused grabbed the travelling bag while the first accused tore a wrist watch away from Mr. Yip's wrist. In the course of the struggle, the first accused hit Mr. Yip over the head with his pistol and the second accused punched him around the head.

3. After the two accused had committed the robbery, they ran southwards along Nathan Road with Mr. Yip in pursuit. Shortly afterwards the first accused was caught and a toy imitation .45 Calibre Colt self-loading pistol was removed from his waistband. The second accused continued running and at one point he produced a long knife and threatened the police officer who was chasing after him. Eventually, he too was arrested.

4. Crown Counsel in his submission before us does not say that the sentence of eighteen months imposed on the two accused for possession of imitation firearm is too low. He does say, however, that the sentence of four years for the robbery is manifestly inadequate. He suggests that since the trial Judge ordered the two sentences to run concurrently, the totality of the sentence is wrong in principle and is manifestly inadequate. We have reviewed a number of recent authorities and it would appear that the proper sentence for an offence of this type would be somewhere between eight to nine years. We have in mind the aggravating factors in this particular case in that pepper was used to inflict temporary blindness and the victim was assaulted by both men. We would regard this case as somewhat more serious than the usual type of robbery. We would  have imposed a sentence of nine years if there had been plea of not guilty. We would have given the accused credit for pleading guilty and thereby reduced the sentence by one year, making it eight years. However, bearing in mind that this is a review and following our usual practice, we would now impose a sentence of seven years on the robbery. The sentence of eighteen months for possession of imitation firearm is untouched.

5. In the circumstances, we would allow the application, impose a sentence of seven years on the robbery and this sentence will run concurrently with the sentence of eighteen months.

Representation:

Mr. F. Wong (Legal Department)for Applicant.

Mr. Kumar Ramanathan (D.L.A.) for both Respondents.