THE QUEEN v. YEUNG WAI MING

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 437 OF 1985

_____________

BETWEEN

___________

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Penlington, J.

1. This is an appeal against sentence. The facts of the case are very simple and familiar. The appellant gained entry into a flat and there using a knife, he threatened the two inmates, one of whom was an elderly lady. He then tied them up, ransacked the flat and made off. That was on 31st of flay 1985. He was arrested in August the same year when he attempted to redeem a camera which was part of the stolen property and a search of his premises revealed another item of the property that had been stolen, a Seiko Watch. There was therefore evidence of recovery of stolen property. Mr Payne, for the appellant, in his succinct argument stressed that nevertheless the Crown would have had to rely on identification by the victims if the matter had gone to trial and that there is always an element of doubt about such identification evidence. By pleading guilty at the trial the appellant should have received a more substantial discount than he did. The trial Judge has said that he reduced the sentence from 7 years to one of 6 years for that factor.

2. It is clear that a discount should be made for a plea of guilty but to what extent depends very much on the particular circumstances of the case. A plea of guilty made at a very late stage in the face of overwhelming evidence should obviously receive much less than one which is made at an early stage and which reflects genuine remorse.

3. There are other possible factors to consider such as co-operation with the police and testifying or saving victims the sometimes distressing ordeal of giving evidence. Each case must be considered on its own facts, and we do not consider it is desirable to lay down guide-lines. In R. v. Skelton and Blackham 1983 C.L. Review 123 a sentence was reduced from 5 years to 3 ½ as the judge had not given sufficient weight to a plea of guilty "and other mitigating circumstances". The case comment says,"This is a further indication that the appropriate discount will be in the order of 25% of the sentence on a conviction following a trial". However in R.v. Williams The Times 14/7/1983 the Court of Appeal said that the proposition that a particular percentage reduction should follow a plea of guilty was not supported by authority and that it was "a matter for individual discretion to be tailed to the needs of each particular case", per Purchas L.J. We entirely agree.

4. The Judge here has reduced the sentence from 7 to 6 years and in the light of the particular circumstances of this case and the facts that were before the trial Judge we do not consider he has exercised his discretion on wrong principles. Application for leave will be refused.