THE QUEEN v. LAU YING WAI

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF HONG KONG

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 113 OF 1986

________________

_______________

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Clough, J. :

1. The Appellant applies for leave to appeal against the sentence of seven and a half years' imprisonment passed upon him on the 25th February, 1936 by Mr. Justice Hopkinson, in the High Court, after the Appellant had pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery. Three other Chinese males were involved in the same offence and it is common ground in this court that this was a serious robbery committed in the early hours of the morning in private premises. It is not challenged that the judge was correct in assessing the sentence for the Appellant and his two co-accused at nine years' imprisonment if they had not pleaded guilty. The judge had this to say when sentencing all three of the accused including the Appellant :-

"I take a serious view of the offence The appropriate sentence after a plea of not guilty would have been nine years' imprisonment. However, none of the accused in this case has previous convictions and each has pleaded guilty, which I take into consideration. So, instead of the nine years, each will go to prison for 7½ years."

2. In the course of mitigation on behalf of the Appellant, counsel had relied on the fact that the Appellant, when he was arrested, had immediately admitted his guilt and not tried to mislead the police or waste their time and that he had said, at a later stage, that he was willing to give evidence against the second accused if the need arose. Unfortunately, the judge was not informed, which is the case, that soon after his arrest the Appellant had given the police useful information which assisted them in arresting the Appellant's two co-accused.

3. It is now well settled that in the case of serious crime, if one of the accused gives assistance which is of some value to the . police, it is in the public interest that this should be taken into account and should lead to some reduction in his sentence at his trial. In this case, the judge gave due allowance for the fact that the Appellant pleaded guilty and had previously had a clear record, and reduced the sentence from nine years to seven and a half years on that account.

4. We consider that in a situation of this kind he should have made further allowance for the quality of the assistance that was given to the police and that an overall reduction of about one-third would have been right and fair. The sentence should be reduced to one of six years.

5. I should mention that there was a second ground of appeal which. has been abandoned by counsel for the Appellant.