HKSAR v. CHAU CHIU YUET

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No. 215
(Criminal)

______________

______________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The Applicant pleaded guilty to various counts of burglary, robbery and indecent assault. There were altogether 3 separate incidents.

2. The 1st was on 22nd October 1995, the 2nd on 24th December 1995 and the 3rd on 19 January 1996. Immediately after the 3rd incident he was arrested. The Applicant was sentenced to a total of 10 years' imprisonment which he now seeks leave to appeal against out of time. No satisfactory explanation has been forthcoming as to why he is out of time.

3. The agreed facts of the 1st incident were that the Applicant rang the doorbell of a flat. The door was opened by a small boy who was in the flat with his brother and sister. The Applicant said that he had come in connection with the gas supply. He instructed the children to go into the bathroom and shut the door. He then ransacked the premises and obtained the items referred to in the 1st count.

4. The 2nd incident was more serious. He resorted to a similar stratagem to gain entry to another flat. On this occasion only a twelve-year old girl was at home. He threatened her with a screw driver and then committed two serious indecent assaults upon her. After this he demanded to be told where the family valuables were kept. When he was told he stole the articles referred to in the 2nd count.

5. The 3rd incident was also very serious. He obtained entry to another flat on a similar pretext. On this occasion only a sixteen-year old girl was at home. He again indecently assaulted and humiliated the girl including forcing her to masturbate him. He also robbed her of HK$100. After he left the flat, the girl raised a commotion and the Applicant was caught by a neighbour who was an off duty police officer.

6. The approach adopted by a Judge Kilgour the sentencing Judge was to impose sentences of 4 years' imprisonment for the burglary and the indecent assault charges and 6 years for the robberies. However having regard to the totality principle he adjusted the sentences so as to arrive at a total sentence of 10 years.

7. The main ground of appeal advanced by the Applicant was that the Judge should have obtained a report from a psychologist before sentencing him. Before us, the Applicant claimed that he had had no pre-meditation to commit the crime. He did not accept that he was extremely dangerous person. He did however accept that he had previously committed sexual offences. However, he claimed to be under-pressure and that he became confused. He was then tempted to commit crimes. None of this would appear to be good grounds for reducing the sentences which were imposed.

8. The Applicant who is aged 32 has a bad record which includes robberies, thefts and an indecent assault. The Judge was clearly fully justified in forming the view he did that the Applicant posed a threat to the community. It was necessary for him to pass a lengthy sentence partly so that members of the public could be protected. Even taking into consideration the fact that the Applicant pleaded guilty to these offences, the sentences which were imposed were neither excessive nor wrong in principle. This application is accordingly dismissed.