R. v. CHAN SHUT YEE

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

Date of Judgment: 6 May 1992

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Fuad, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the court):

1. The applicant, Chan Shut Yee, pleaded guilty to 2 charges at the committal stage: attempted robbery (1st Charge) and possessing an imitation firearm when committing an offence, contrary to s.17(2) of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance (2nd Charge). He was committed to the High Court for sentence and on 4th October 1991 Gall, J. sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment on the 1st Charge and to three years' imprisonment on the 2nd Charge, the sentences to run concurrently. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to this court from those sentences.

2. The admitted facts were that soon after midday on 16th October 1990 the applicant went to the Personal Finance Centre of the Standard Chartered Bank in Hoi Yuen Road, Kwun Tong. At the counter he gave a brown paper bag to one of the lady tellers. When she looked inside the paper bag, she saw a note on which were written the words "Fifty Thousand Dollars". When she asked the applicant what his account number was, he pulled open his jacket thereby revealing a pistol-like object. The teller managed to activate the security alarm and the surveillance camera.

3. At this moment a colleague came over to the teller who had been confronted by the applicant to see what was happening. The applicant then fled through the side exit of the bank without in fact getting any money. Photos taken by the surveillance camera were circulated to the police and the applicant was eventually located. He had been detained in a Training Centre for having committed other offences when he was recognised as the culprit in this case.

4. In a statement to the police, under caution, he admitted that he had bought a toy gun on the day in question and that he had committed the offences charged.

5. The applicant is now aged 19 1/2 years, having been born in November 1972. Despite his youth, he has a bad record. He was sent to a Boys' Home in 1986 for attempted burglary and theft and to a Detention Centre in 1987 for four offences of burglary committed while he was on home leave from the Boys' Home. In 1988 he was sent to a Training Centre for theft from his father. While he was still subject to the 1988 Order, he absconded from a half-way house and committed two further offences of theft. He was also convicted of possessing an offensive weapon. For these offences he was returned to the Training Centre. He was released at the end of 1990 but was soon in trouble again. On 1st March 1991 he was again ordered to be sent to a Training Centre, this time for three offences of burglary. His conduct and performance there, we are told, has been satisfactory. When a medical assessment was made  in July 1991, he was found not to be suffering from any formal psychiatric illness

6. In passing sentence, the learned judge accepted that the applicant had come from a broken home. He took into account his early plea of guilty and indicated that he would give the applicant the maximum reduction he felt able to give in the circumstances. He took as a starting point for this type of offence a sentence of 12 years' imprisonment and imposed the sentences earlier mentioned.

7. These were very serious offences committed by somebody who deserved no extra leniency on account of his previous conduct. At the present day, it is quite impossible to say, despite the applicant's youth, that the overall sentence of 8 years' imprisonment is manifestly excessive for these particular offences. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.