Chan Yiu-sum v. The Queen

Case No.CACC 1211/1977

Court

Court of Appeal

Date20 Apr 1978

Judge—

Case Document

100%

CACC001211/1977

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	1977 No. 1211
	(Criminal)

BETWEEN:
	CHAN Yiu-sum	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 20th April, 1978.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant was convicted of one count of robbery and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. He appealed against his conviction and sentence. We dismissed his appeal against conviction.

2. In the morning of April 28th, 1976 a man approached the victim in this case and said he was a police officer. He told him he was wanted at the police station. The victim accompanied the supposed policeman to a car in which the appellant and another man were passengers. The car set off and it soon became apparent to the victim that he was in the hands of robbers. They roughed him up in the car and drove him back to his factory where they made him write out a cheque for $4,000. This was cashed and the appellant and his two companions left the victim at the side of the road. He returned home and found that while the cheque was being written one of the robbers had stolen a further sum of $4,000 which had been in a drawer in his office. With the second sum we are not concerned.

3. The appellant is a proprietor of a factory as was the victim. He had a clear record, this being his first offence. In his defence he admitted that he was present both in the car and also at the incident concerning the cheque. However, he denied that he was party to the robbery and that he assaulted the appellant. The conviction was based on the fact that the appellant was not only present but was there as one of the robbers in this sense.

4. His presence and attitude at the scene assisted the commission of the robbery and helped to put the victim in fear. There was no evidence that the appellant received any gain from the robbery. But he did admit pushing the victim once.

5. In the event, we considered that the sentence of four years' imprisonment was excessive. We, therefore, allowed the appeal against sentence to the extent that the period of four years' imprisonment is reduced to a period of two years and six months.

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	President.

Representation:

A.M. Niamatullah (H.M. So & Co.) for appellant

Ingham for crown