R. v. WONG MAU KWONG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 641

(Criminal)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Liu JA:

1. The applicant was charged with two robbery, taking conveyance without authority, driving without a valid driving licence, driving without third party insurance and possession of some soft drugs. He pleaded guilty. He was sentenced by the judge to 3 years and 4 months for the first robbery, 4 years and 8 months for the second robbery, 12 months for driving away a taxi without authority, 3 months for driving without a valid driving licence, 12 months for driving without third party insurance, and 12 months for possession of drugs. All his sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was also ordered to be disqualified for 2 years. In total, he is serving a sentence of 4 years and 8 months.

2. These charges arose from a lift robbery followed immediately by a taxi robbery. Both took place on 17 June 1996. In the lift, the applicant produced a sharp object, probably a broken pair of scissors, placing against the victim's neck. He robbed the victim of $340. He left the lift and came out from the building into the Valley Road Estate. He hailed a taxi and asked the driver to take him to Fat Kwong Street, Ho Man Tin. On arriving at the destination, all of a sudden he grabbed the taxi driver's neck and pressed the broken scissors against it. He demanded money. The taxi driver gave him some. He demanded more and searched the taxi driver's shirt pocket and obtained more money. He asked the taxi driver for more bank notes of large denomination. The taxi driver told him that he had none, and then he moved to the front passenger seat, with a view to searching the taxi driver for more cash. He warned the taxi driver that he would be stabbed if money was found on him. In the course of all that, the taxi driver managed to escape. The applicant drove the taxi off. And he was chased after by the taxi driver in another commandeered taxi. The applicant in fact robbed the taxi driver of $120. He managed to escape in the taxi. Police were alerted. He was stopped and arrested. Sixteen pills containing Zopiclone were found on him. He was subsequently charged. To these charges, he pleaded guilty and sentenced accordingly.

3. He feels aggrieved and seeks leave to apply for leave to appeal against sentence. In his grounds in support of his application, he set out the conditions of his mother and his father and his own conditions, said to be under the influence of the soft drugs. He claimed to have been upset by the planned emigration of his mother. As a hairdresser, he earned over $10,000 a month. He wishes the court to allow him to be released at an earlier date for taking care of his parents. He added nothing more to what has been set out in his written grounds of appeal.

4. We can find nothing of substance in the matters set out in his grounds. The judge took into consideration all the circumstances, including the manner in which the robberies were committed. Proper starting points were adopted. The applicant was given a third discount. None of his sentences is manifestly excessive or wrong in law. His application is wholly unmeritorious. The applicant had been warned that if he should persist in proceeding with his application, this court might consider ordering time loss. In these circumstances, we dismiss his application and order loss of time of two months.