|
CACC000064/1986
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL |
1986, No. 64
(Criminal)
|
BETWEEN
|
THE QUEEN
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
SHUI KOK WA |
(D1) |
|
LO CHI KEUNG |
(D2) |
|
MAN LAI SING |
(D3) |
--------
Coram: Li, V. -P., Yang, J. A. & Penlington, J.
Date of hearing: 15th May, 1986.
Date of delivery of judgment: 15th May, 1986.
__________
JUDGMENT
__________
Yang, J. A.:
1. Both the 1st and the 3rd Applicants pleaded guilty to robbery. Each was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment. This is their application to appeal against sentence.
2. The facts of the case are as follows: On the 17th August 1985, the three Applicants, and one other co-accused, together with people unknown, robbed a fur trading company of some 7,293 pieces of mink skin of considerable value. A group of 3 men including the two Appilicants acting as customers, resorted to a ruse to gain entry into the company: At an opportune moment the 3 men produced knives from the bags they were carrying and threatened the employees. They tied up the employees' hands with wire and covered their mouths with adhesive tapes. After obtaining what they wanted they escaped. On the way out of the company the 2nd Applicant was seen by policeman pushing a trolley loaded with cardboard boxes containing the mink skins.
3. The 1st Applicant submits that he was a prosecution witness at the trial and testified against the 4th accused. Mr. Duckett fairly concedes that the 1st Applicant gave evidence to the best of his ability but the 4th accused was eventually acquitted. The 3rd Applicant also submits that he was a prosecution witness, but his evidence was contradictory to the statement he had earlier given to the Crown. The result was that the Crown was quite unable to rely on his evidence in Court.
4. It cannot be denied that the offence committed was well planned. We are of the view that if the 1st and 3rd Applicants had been convicted after trial, the appropriate sentence would have been one of 8 years. Their early pleas of guilty were considered by the trial judge but we do not think that sufficient credit was given to those pleas. We also take into account the fact that the premises was not domestic and the robbery took place during daytime.
5. In all the circumstances, we are of the view that a reduction of the sentences from 7 to 5 years is appropriate. We treat the application as the appeal, allow the appeal and reduce the sentences on the 1st and 3rd Applicants to 5 years.
|
T. L. Yang
Justice of Appeal
|
Representation:
D. O'Reilly Mayne, Q. C. & Souyave (Roger S. K. Wong & Co.) for D2
Shui Kok Wa and Man Lai Sing, D1 and D3 in person
A. P. Duckett, Q. C. and A. Chan, Crown Counsel for Respondent
|