Kwan Cheuk Leung v. The Queen
|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 87 OF 1973 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Leonard J. in Court Date: 21st February 1973 ----------------------------- JUDGMENT ----------------------------- 1. The case has caused me some anxiety. The appellant, a young man of 23, pleaded guilty in the court below to four charges of robbery. The victims of these four charges were young boys aged between 16 and 14. The robberies were invariably on the boys who were alone and defenceless. The appellant also asked for six other charges of a similar nature to be taken into consideration. It is particularly to be noticed that in no case was any weapon used nor it is suggested that the appellant was in possession of any weapon. It is further to be noticed that the fact of the appellant’s complicity in these cases would not have come to light had it not been for his frankness in revealing his complicity to the police. The learned magistrate imposed sentences of three years in all in respect of the four offences taking the six offences into consideration. 2. In his grounds of judgment the learned magistrate does not state whether he took into consideration (a) that the appellant had pleaded guilty or (b) that his complicity in the offences would not have been known had it not been for his frank statement to the police. The sentence imposed was the maximum available to the learned magistrate although of course not the maximum available in law. In more normal times I should have considered that the attitude adopted by the appellant and the fact that on no occasion did he carry a weapon were reasons for a substantial reduction in the sentence imposed in this case. These unfortunately are times in which there are robberies extremely prevalent. Again there is no doubt but that the appellant set out deliberately on a planned type of robbery in which he attacked young boys who were alone and in one case a lady of 35 who put up a spirited resistance to his attack. 3. In mitigation before me the appellant points out that this is the first time he has committed this type of crime. He has, however, a bad record including a conviction for the offence of manslaughter. This apparently arose from a gang fight. Had the appellant being charged in a higher court I could not have regarded the sentence imposed upon him as manifestly excessive. I have, however, come to the conclusion that since he was tried before a magistrate the sentences imposed were wrong in principle in that the learned magistrate failed to take into account the pleas of guilty, the frankness to the police and the absence of any weapon. These three factors should have received recognition from the learned magistrate. I feel I must reduce these sentences having regard to these three factors. I think the proper sentence to impose in respect of these offences having regard to the court in which they were tried is one of the two years and six months’ imprisonment. Accordingly the sentence of the A charge will stand as will the sentences of six months each on the remaining three charges. However, the sentence on the fourth charge will be concurrent with the sentences on the first three charges. The result of this would be that the appellant will serve a sentence of two years and six months instead of three years as prescribed by the learned magistrate.
Appellant in person. Mr. Corrigan, S.C.C. for Crown/Respondent. |