The Queen v. Chung Ah Wing

CACC000127/1988

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

___________

BETWEEN

_____________

Coram: Court of Appeal (Hon. Cons, V-P, Fuad, V-P & Mayo, J.)

Date of Hearing: 9th September, 1988

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 9th September, 1988

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Mayo, J. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The Appellant who I will refer to as the 2nd Defendant was charged with 12 counts of robbery. The 1st Defendant was charged with 2 counts namely the 7th and 12th charges. Both the 1st and 2nd Defendant pleaded guilty to these charges and the 2nd Defendant also pleaded guilty to the 9th, 10th and 11th charges. The 2nd Defendant pleaded not guilty to all the other charges.

2. The trial was before de Basto J. on the 8th March this year.

3. The Crown agreed that the remaining charges should remain on file and the judge proceeded to pass sentence on the basis of an agreed Statement of Facts and after having heard counsel of both Defendants pleas of mitigation.

4. The agreed Statement of Facts outline the circumstances of each robbery.

5. It is evident that a similar modus operandi was adopted in each of these cases. They were all what I think are usually described as stairway robberies.

6. The victims were all in the vicinity of the stairway to domestic premises. The culprits would rush up to the victims and one of them would seize him by the neck and then relieve him of his personal effects.

7. A not inconsiderable measure of violence was resorted to. I say this because in each case the victim was rendered unconscious as a result of the assault upon their persons.

8. It is noteworthy to add that some of the victims were quite elderly. For example, on the 12th count the victim was a gentleman aged 58.

9. We accept that on the agreed Statement of Findings no offensive weapons were used. At the hearing both Defendants were legally represented. It would appear from the record that everything possible was said on their behalf in mitigation.

10. Notwithstanding this it is clear that both men had shocking records.

11. The 2nd Defendant's record goes back to 1958 and includes 13 robberies.

12. The judge sentenced the 1st Defendant to 8 years imprisonment and the 2nd Defendant to 11 years imprisonment.

13. In his grounds of appeal, the 2nd Defendant claims that the sentence imposed on him was excessive. He also referred to the fact that no offensive weapons were used.

14. Before us, he also added he had co-operated with the police in recovering stolen property.

15. One thing which is very clear from the Judge's Reasons for Sentence was that a substantial discount was given for the guilty pleas and also the fact that offensive weapons were not used.

16. It is difficult not to sympathize with the view expressed by the learned Judge that the 2nd Defendant does not seem to have been rehabilitated as a consequence of his previous terms of imprisonment and that he constitutes a danger to society.

17. We can see no reason to interfere with the sentence which was imposed on this Defendant. This application is accordingly dismissed.

Representation:

Mr. A.A. Bruce, Crown Prosecutor for Crown

Chung Ah Wing, Appellant in person