HKSAR v. Liang Bingzhao
|
CACC000122/1996 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1996, No. 122 ____________________
____________________ Coram: Hon. Power, Atg CJHC, Mayo, J.A. and Saied, J. in Court Date of hearing: 16 September 1997 Date of judgment: 16 September 1997 ____________________ J U D G M E N T ____________________ Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court): 1. The Applicant pleaded guilty to piracy before Seagroatt J. and was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment on 30th January 1996. On 6th February 1996 he filed an application for leave to appeal against the sentence which had been imposed. On 29th May 1996 he filed a notice of abandonment of his application. 2. On 1st May 1997 the Applicant made an application for leave to appeal out of time. In fact the application should have been an application for his notice of abandonment to be treated as a nullity . The reason given for this change of heart is that Legal Aid was not forthcoming for his appeal and as he claimed that he had insufficient funds for private legal representation he did not pursue the appeal. He claimed before us that his family had now obtained sufficient funds for this purpose. 3. The offence was a serious one. On 13 June 1995, three security guards were detailed to transport HK$10 million from the Bank of China in Macau to Hong Kong. The cash was placed in fire-proof bags and taken by the 3 men on board the jetfoil "Guia". The bags were simply placed on the luggage rack. 4. Some time after the jetfoil commenced its journey to Hong Kong the master and two officers heard a voice outside the wheelhouse demanding to be let in on pain of death. Shots were fired at the door of the wheelhouse and the operation of the lock was jammed. The master was able to use his radio telephone to alert the Macau authorities of his predicament. 5. Later the master and his officers were able to climb down to the lower deck where they were held at gunpoint and required to lie prone on the deck. 6. The jetfoil was effectively hijacked. The security guards were asked the whereabouts the cash and they remained silent. 7. The master was ordered to proceed to Qi'ao Island. He objected to this on the ground that the waters there were too shallow for the draft of the jetfoil. 8. The culprits on board insisted that the master complied with that order and he did so. When they were approaching the destination, they were met by a speedboat which it is an agreed fact was driven by the Applicant. This speedboat was used as the means of escape for the men who took the bags containing the moneys. 9. The Applicant was arrested at Kai Tak Airport shortly after this. From the outset he co-operated with the police and it was accepted that it was as a result of information he gave that the other men involved in this offence were arrested in China and in Macau. One of the men arrested in China was executed, another received a "suspended death sentence" and another a life sentence. 10. In his reasons for the sentence Seagroatt J. referred to the grave dangers attendant upon activities of this nature and while recognising the Applicant's role had been a subsidiary role considered that 30 years' imprisonment was an appropriate starting point. Giving the Applicant credit for his plea, he reduced the sentence to 20 years' imprisonment. 11. While the reasons given for granting the indulgence which is sought are hardly compelling, we do consider that the interests of justice require us to hear this application. 12. The starting point of 30 years' imprisonment was high even in the very serious circumstances of this case. In addition to this we consider the discount given was inadequate having regard to the invaluable assistance which the Applicant was able to give the authorities. In this connection, it was as a result of the information given that the main culprits were brought before the courts and a large portion of the proceeds were recovered. Having regard to the overall situation, we consider that a sentence of 16 years' imprisonment would have been sufficient to reflect the gravity of this offence. 13. The Application is allowed. We treat it as the appeal and substitute a sentence of 16 years' imprisonment for the term which was imposed.
Representation: Miss Shine, S.G.C. (D.P.P.) for Respondent Liang Bingzhao, Applicant in person |