HKSAR v. LAU SAI KIT

1997, No.614
(Criminal)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE HIGH COURT

(On appeal from High Court Case No.HCCC259/97)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Cheung, J. (giving the judgment of the Court) :

The offences

1. The Applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and one count of possession of offensive weapon.

2. The robberies occurred on two separate occasions in the lifts of a housing estate. The victims were women returning to their home at night. The Applicant threatened them with a knife and robbed them of their valuables.

3. In respect of the offence of possession of offensive weapon, it was discovered when the Applicant was intercepted by the police and a knife was found on him. He admitted to the police that the knife was intended to be used in the robbery.

The sentence

4. The learned Deputy Judge sentenced the Applicant to a total term of five years' imprisonment. The sentence was calculated as follows. On the two counts of robbery, a starting point of seven years was adopted, reducing it to five years after taking into account the guilty plea. On the count of the possession of offensive weapon, 18 months' imprisonment was imposed. All three sentences were to be served concurrently.

The appeal

5. The Applicant, through Mr Soo, complained that the seven years starting point for robbery was too high and the full one-third discount for the guilty plea was not given.

Lift robbery

6. The tariff for lift robbery, where knife was displayed to the victim, was six years: Mo Kwong Sang v. R. [1981] HKLR 610. However, in this case, the learned Judge was not dealing with one single charge of robbery. It is clear from his Reasons for Sentence that when he adopted a starting point of seven years, he was referring to two offences of robbery. As two separate offences of robbery were involved, we are of the view that a starting point of seven years is appropriate.

One-third discount

7. Our concern is on the discount given by the learned Judge. A one-third discount is usually made for a guilty plea when the plea was entered at the first proper opportunity. In HKSAR v. Man Kam Shing [1997] 3 HKC 469, the Court of Appeal has clearly stated that if the one-third deduction is not followed, then reasons should be given. The learned Judge did not give a reason for not adopting the one-third discount.

8. The purpose of giving the one-third discount is to encourage guilty pleas to be given as soon as possible so that court time would not be wasted. In this case, the Applicant had indicated before trial that he intended to plead guilty to the offences and he did so on the first day of the trial. To ensure that defendants may know where they stand when they enter a guilty plea, the principle in Man Kam Shing should be observed. For this reason, we would, with reluctance, interfere with the sentence imposed by the learned Judge and substitute it by a sentence of four years and eight months so as to reflect the full one-third discount. And to that extent, the appeal is allowed.