THE QUEEN v. LEE MING

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

NO. 264 of 1987
(Criminal)

____________________

___________________

JUDGMENT

___________________

Kempster, J.A.:

1. On 25th May last in the High Court two men, both called Lee Ming, (D1 & D3) and Ng Chi-wah, who was D2, pleaded guilty to robbing one Wu Chi-cheong of gold wristwatch, and other valuables, being personal items, at the premises of the Cheong Ming Plastic Co in Tuen Mun on 31st December 1986.

2. After hearing an address in mitigation from counsel who represented them all, as he has represented them again today, Barnett J. sentenced each offender to 8 years imprisonment. Against those sentences they seek leave to appeal.

3. The circumstances of the offence, which were admitted, were that at approximately 11.30 in the morning of the day in question the defendants, each masked and carrying a beef knife, entered the factory. The Mr. Lee known as D1 grabbed the proprietor, Mr. Wu, and took from him a gold 'Rolex' wrist-watch and the other items described in the indictment. He then tied Mr. Wu's thumbs together with copper wire and ordered him to lie 'face-down' on the floor. Not, it would seem, as a result of deliberate blows Mr. Wu sustained minor injuries to his left ear and right elbow.

4. At about the same time the other Mr. Lee Ming, D3, went to the rear of the factory, shouted robbery and ordered the employees there to squat down on the floor. Apparently the, alarm was raised almost at once and all three applicants sought to escape.

5. On his way out D3 accosted a further employee and made him crouch down on the floor. Courageously the wife of the factory owner and an employee, Lim Sai-kong, gave chase and encountered the applicants on the landing between the first and second, floors of the building. D1 chopped both of them. The victims were subsequently taken to a clinic for treatment of the cuts and lacerations caused by his blows.

6. As the way out was barred the applicants, in desperation, jumped from the building to make good their escape. Each one of them sustained injuries. After arrest they were taken to the custodial ward of a hospital.

7. At the time sentences were passed those injuries appeared potentially serious. This court requested up-to-date medical reports which are now to band. It appears that each applicant has made a good recovery and can walk and move quite normally.

8. Coming to the personal circumstances of the applicants, each is an illegal immigrant from China. D1 is 22 years of age, D2 is 26 and D3 23. Nothing really is known about their characters and antecedents. But in a case of robbery such matters are only of marginal significance. To their credit they pleaded guilty and time and money were saved as would necessarily be and indeed was reflected - to a marked degree - in the sentence passed by the Judge Mr. Spicer points out that Barnett J. thought that the appropriate figure after a contest would have been 12 years imprisonment.

9. We are invited to consider that view in the light of the facts of Attorney-General and Kwok[1] where there were two counts against the defendants; one of robbery and the other of wounding. The wounding was very severe indeed, might have caused death and was inflicted in the most callous of circumstances. Sentences of twelve years imprisonment overall were thought appropriate by the Court of Appeal.

10. Comparing such facts with those of the instant case twelve years appears to us much too high a figure at which to approach the question of sentence. Nine years would seem right as Mr. Spicer submits. When we make an appropriate allowance for the plea and take into consideration what may be described as "self-inflicted" injuries we also agree that 7 years is the appropriate sentence in relation to each applicant.

11. In the circumstances we will grant these applications, treat this hearing as the hearing as the appeals and substitute, in each case, for the sentence of 8 years imprisonment one of 7 years.