WONG WAI KEUNG and Another v. R.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 164
(Criminal)

___________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1. The applicants were D1 and D3 in District Court Case 123/94. D1 pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment. D2 and D3 after a trial were convicted of the offence. D3 was also sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment. D1 and D3 both appeal against the sentences which were imposed.

2. On the admitted facts so far as D1 is concerned and the findings of the trial judge so far as D3 was concerned this was a bad case. D1 and D3 together with D2 who is the wife of D1 followed a lady into a lift of a residential block of flats on the evening of 6 December 1993. D1 produced a paper cutter and threatened the lady with it and announced that they were robbing her. They forced her out of the lift and took her to a staircase and robbed her of a diamond ring and a gold necklace. They tied her arms to the staircase and covered her mouth with adhesive tape. They then escaped.

3. The defendants were apprehended partly as a result of the caretaker of the block of flats being able to say that D1 and D3 had left the building shortly after the robbery. They had at some time previously been residents there.

4. All of the defendants made cautioned statements which contained admissions.

5. The trial judge adopted six years as the appropriate starting point and gave D1 25% reduction from this point for his guilty plea.

6. On the facts which were before him the trial judge came to the conclusion that the role assumed by D3 was a much less important role than D1's and gave him a similar discount.

7. Mr Macrae for D3 submitted in his grounds of appeal that the sentence imposed on his client was manifestly excessive. Before us he resiled from that. He referred to D3's comparatively minor role and the reasonably optimistic assessment made by the Probation Officer in his report. He expressed the opinion that D3 might be amenable to "rectification" if subjected to disciplinary training and after-care supervision.

8. The Probation Officer referred to a lax life style and D3 had drifted between different jobs and formed dubious acquaintanceships. His family had been surprised that he had committed the offences.

9. The picture which seems to emerge is that he is a young man who is easily led and assumes a role of a hanger on.

10. Possibly that may be the case. However the seriousness of this offence amply justified the sentence which was passed. He could count himself very fortunate that he was given such a generous discount for the relatively minor role he assumed. His application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

11. D1 complains that he was given an insufficient discount for his guilty plea. Before us he said that he wanted to turn over a new leaf. While it might be said that the discount was not overly generous this is very much a matter for the discretion of the trial judge. We do not see grounds to justify our interfering with the sentence which is imposed. The application for leave is dismissed.