THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG WAI LUN

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

JUDGMENT

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

Mortimer JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 28 October 1996 the applicant pleaded guilty to a joint offence of robbery with three others in front of Her Honour Judge Beeson.

2. On 11 November 1996 he was sentenced to 3 years and 4 months imprisonment for the offence, to be served concurrent with two sentences, one of 3 months and another one of 21 days which had been passed shortly before for two offences of theft.

The facts

3. On 20 July 1996, shortly after midnight, Mr Chan Chu-ming, closed his business and had goods from his stall in a nylon bag. Mr Chan found himself surrounded by the applicant and three other youths who then attacked him with wooden sticks and bottles as a result of which he dropped his bag. They made off with it. The bag contained goods in the charge worth $3,000 and included 120 packets of cigarettes. Mr Chan sustained abrasions and bruising. He reported the matter to the police.

4. The following morning, the applicant and three others were seen selling cigarettes at an MTR station. Consequently the police were informed. Although they fled when the police arrived, they were all caught.

In sentencing

5. The judge took into account in carefully set-out reasons for sentence the applicant's plea of guilty and his previous history. It is not necessary for this Court to repeat that history save to say that the Social Welfare Department has been involved with the applicant for many years and he has shown an aptitude for misbehaviour at both social and criminal levels. That history includes a sentence to a Training Centre where he remained for a 31-month period.

6. No doubt at his age he still needs considerable training and assistance. But as to sentence, the judge's hands were tied. The applicant was already serving a sentence when she came to consider what sentence to pass. She chose 5 years as the starting point. For this serious offence that was a proper sentence after trial. She reduced that to a sentence of 3 years and 4 months for the plea of guilty. That was a proper reduction. She made the sentence concurrent with the sentence then being served.

7. In these circumstances the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. The application is refused.