R. v. TANG KEUNG

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 376 OF 1994

________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1. On 15th March 1994 at Western Magistrates' Court, the Appellant pleaded guilty to two charges. The first was robbery, and the second was remaining in Hong Kong without the lawful authority of the Director of Immigration. He was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment on the first

charge and 15 months' imprisonment on the second concurrent. He now appeals against these sentences.

2. The magistrate was not told when the Appellant, who was 19 at the time of his trial, had come to Hong Kong. However, it was said that he had come to Hong Kong from China to look for a job. The robbery which he had committed had been committed by four defendants. They had approached a man in the street about 8:00 p.m., and had demanded him to hand over his valuables. When the man struggled, he was cut on the hand and wrist. After the robbery, the four defendants ran off. When they were arrested ten minutes later, the defendants, with the exception of the Appellant, were each found to have some of the victim's possessions on them, and one of the defendants, D1, had a knife.

3. All the defendants faced the same two charges. They all pleaded guilty, and all received the same sentence except for D1 who was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment on the charge of robbery. The magistrate described him as the "mastermind", though I think a better description would have been "ringleader". The magistrate took account of the fact that the Appellant played only a supporting role, and reflected his plea of guilty, his clear record and the role that he played in the sentences she imposed. I cannot fault her conclusion that the Appellant deserved to go to prison for 20 months in all.

4. Today, the Appellant has told me that his family is in financial difficulties. His grandmother needs his support. His stepmother and father no longer care for him at all. Although I can sympathize with the Appellant in the plight in which he finds himself, I cannot say that these are such sufficiently strong humanitarian reasons as to justify a departure from the guidelines laid down in So Man-king [1989] 1 H.K.L.R. 142. For these reasons, therefore, this appeal must be dismissed.