Li Wing Kin and Another v. The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 765 OF 1972

________________________

________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Huggins, J.:

1.  The first Appellant appeals against conviction and sentences and the second Appellant appeals against sentences only. They were jointly indicted for robbery at a bank. The first Appellant was then charged also with possession of a firearm at the time of committing that robbery. The second Appellant was separately charged with robbery at another bank, with possession of a firearm at the time of committing that robbery, with robbery of a woman on the Repulse Bay Road, with theft and with two charges of unlawful control of arms and ammunition without a licence. The second Appellant was acquitted on the last three charges. Both were sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment on the first count. The first Appellant was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment on the second and the second Appellant to six months’ imprisonment on the fourth count – the firearms counts – and those sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The second Appellant was further sentenced to six months’ imprisonment consecutive for the additional robbery count.

2.  In our view there is absolutely no merit in any of these applications. Counsel who has appeared for the first Appellant has been unable to advance any ground in respect of the conviction. The Appellant himself has been unable to say anything. The only issue really in the case was as to the identity of the robbers and we accept what counsel has said – that the evidence was indeed overwhelming. We need say nothing more.

3.  The first count and the third count were very similar in respect of the actual facts of the case. In one case two men, and the other three, entered branch offices of a bank and held up the persons inside with a weapon. The weapon in the first charge has been produced. It was described by counsel as a “toy”. That is not entirely an accurate description of the weapon. It was originally a starting pistol. It has been bored through so that a blank cartridge can be used to eject any suitable missile which may be inserted in the barrel. Such a weapon can be lethal and is certainly extremely dangerous. Counsel said that the weapon was not used in the course of the first robbery. It was not fired but it was certainly used and the pictures which were taken by the security camera show quite clearly that it was being used to threaten persons inside the bank.

4.  Although this first Appellant is a comparatively young man, being 23 years of age, we see no reason whatever to interfere with the sentences which were imposed upon him. He held the weapon: he was the principal actor in this first robbery. It is true that the pictures do not suggest that those inside the bank were quaking with fear but it is absurd to say that they were not frightened and the mere fact that there was a conviction for robbery is enough to establish for the purposes of sentence that they were frightened.

5.  The second Appellant has been unable to advance anything in his own favour apart from his suggestion that he has been unfortunate in losing his parents in his early youth – and he further says that he has an aged aunt whom he will not be likely to see again when he comes out of prison. These are not matters which in our view would justify us in interfering with sentences which were entirely proper. Those who go into banks, jewellery shops or any other places armed with a weapon and steal large quantities of money must be expected to be treated with the full rigour of the law, and in our view the sentences passed here were wholly appropriate. We see no reason to interfere and the applications for leave to appeal against conviction and against sentences are dismissed.

3rd May 1973.