THE QUEEN v. SHING HON LEUNG

-------

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

Fuad, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the court):

1. The applicant, Shing Hon Leung, who is aged about 22, appeared on 26th September 1990 before Mr. G.P. Muttrie, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the District Court, charged with four offences of robbery and one of possessing dangerous drugs. He pleaded guilty to all the charges and, on 10th October, was sentenced to concurrent terms of 5 years' imprisonment on each of the four robbery charges and a concurrent sentence of 6 months' imprisonment on the dangerous drugs charge. He was thus to serve a total sentence of 5 years' imprisonment. From those sentences he seeks leave to appeal to this court.

2. The victims in all the four robberies were taxi drivers. Two of the offences were committed on 11th April and two on 12th April, 1990. They all took place in Nam Wai Village, Sai Kung in the early hours of the morning or very late at night. In three cases a knife or knives were used to threaten the victims. In the fourth case, instead of a knife, a piece of wood was used. In two cases the applicant was on his own, while in the other two cases he was assisted by at least two juveniles. The sums of money stolen were not large: $100, $400, $200 and $40. The amount of drugs involved in the fifth charge was 2.75 grammes of a mixture containing 0.08 grammes of salts of esters of morphine.

3. The applicant was arrested just after the fourth robbery when two plain clothes policemen on patrol approached the stationary taxi whereupon the driver sounded his horn and shouted "robbery".

4. The applicant had three minor previous convictions. In respect of two of them he was fined and for the other he was placed on probation.

5. On behalf of the applicant, whom we note is legally aided, it was submitted that the judge had not given sufficient credit for the applicant's plea of guilty and his assistance in clearing up the three earlier robberies. It was also submitted that the totality of the sentences of 5 years was excessive having regard to the fact that such a short space of time passed between the commission of each of the robberies.

6. The deputy judge regarded the fact that in the first and second robberies the applicant had used boys to help him, as an aggravating factor. We think that he was quite right to do so. Taking all the circumstances into account, we are unable to see how it can be said that the aggregate of the sentences imposed was manifestly excessive. Indeed we express some surprise that the offences were charged in the District Court rather than in the High Court.

7. We have reached the conclusion that the sentences were, on the contrary, manifestly inadequate. We allow the application. We treat the hearing as the hearing of the appeal. We set aside the 5 years' sentences on charges 1 to 4 and in their place substitute sentences of 6 years' imprisonment, concurrent on each of the four charges so that the appellant will serve a total of 6 years' imprisonment instead of 5 years.