The Attorney General v. Tai Ming-keung
|
CAAR000014/1981
----------------- Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Yang & Barker, JJ.A. Date of Judgment: 3rd December 1981 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P. : 1. This is an application by the Attorney General for review of sentence. The Respondent was charged in the District Court inter alia on two charges of robbery. He was convicted on those charges and sentenced to be detained in a detention centre. It is submitted on behalf of the Attorney General that these sentences were wrong in principle. The basis of the argument is that these were particularly serious offences of a type which normally requires the imposition of immediate terms of imprisonment and that there were no sufficient reasons for passing a different sentence from the normal. 2. On two occasions, two days apart, the Respondent committed robberies on taxi drivers. Taxi drivers are in a particularly vulnerable position and this Court has said that they must be protected. The offences were committed in the small hours of the morning, when obviously there is little protection. They were committed by the Respondent in company with another and on each occasion at least one chopper was used to threaten the victim. It is notorious that these offences are very prevalent. 3. It is one of the factors to be considered in passing any sentence that regard must be paid to public opinion, i.e., to the reaction of the ordinary man to the sentence passed, although of course the Courts must never be stampeded into accepting the sometimes unreasoning views of the public. 4. The learned Judge in the Court below passed these sentences after a very careful consideration - after a consideration in particular of a number of relevant authorities - and he came to his decision not without some hesitation. The question which we have to ask ourselves is whether there was an error in principle and it is not relevant that each of us might well, if sitting at first instance, have passed a different sentence. 5. The conclusion which we have reached is that there was here an error in principle. For offences of this kind the normal sentence is in the region of 4 or 5 years imprisonment and only where there are exceptional circumstances, relating either to the offence or to the offender, should that normal sentence not be imposed. There were here clearly no mitigating circumstances relating to the offence, nor, on consideration, do we think that there were mitigating factors relating to the offender. The Respondent had a background of poverty, but, alas, that is the background of a great number of offenders who come before the courts. He did eventually plead guilty: he was only 19% years of age at the date when the offences were committed: he was the type of man who might well, as the Judge said, be susceptible to undesirable influences, although there is no clear evidence that he was in fact over-borne in the present case. We think: that there were no exceptional circumstances relating to the background of this offender which justified departure from the normal. Indeed, it must be remarked that he was found guilty of four disciplinary offences during the period that he was on remand - offences for which he no doubt has already been punished-but this is a matter which we can take into consideration in considering all the aspects of the case. 6. This application must be allowed and, having regard to the fact that this is a review and that we are not imposing the sentences at first instance, the order for detention will be quashed and sentences of 3 years imprisonment substituted. The sentences on the two counts will, of course, be concurrent. 3rd December 1981 Representation: |