R. v. Law Hung Shu

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No.471
(Criminal)

___________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Power, V.-P.(giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This applicant was convicted after trial on three counts of robbery. He was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and six months on each count and the sentences were ordered to be concurrent. He has today abandoned his application for leave to appeal against convictions but pursued his application for leave to appeal against the sentences.

2. These were mean robberies carried out in most cases by three young men who, in a bullying way, approached young persons in game centres, threatened them and stole from them. The trial judge quite rightly took a serious view of these robberies and imposed a sentence of three years and six months in each case to be concurrent. He could well have imposed an overall longer sentence. Indeed the starting point for each would well have been five years.

3. There is nothing that has been urged before us today which would suggest any reason for us to interfere in the sentences.

4. The application for leave to appeal will be refused and we order that there be three months loss of time.