THE QUEEN v. WONG SAN CHOI

_____________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Macdougall J.:

1. The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of robbery and was sentenced by His Honour Judge Sharwood to serve 4?years imprisonment. He now appeals against that sentence on the grounds that his aged parents and grandmother depend on him for financial support and that he foolishly committed the robbery for financial reasons.

2. The agreed facts were that at about 9.30 p.m., the proprietor of a hairdressing salon was alone in the premises with the metal shutter lowered but not locked. The applicant raised the shutter and enquired whether a woman had come for a permanent wave. On being told that she had gone, the applicant departed, and the proprietor again lowered the shutter. Shortly afterwards the applicant accompanied by another man, both armed with beef knifes, returned and declared robbery. Having robbed the victim of jewellery and cash they tied him to a shampoo chair and left. The victim quickly freed himself and raised the alarm. A member of the public and two patrolling police officers pursued the robbers and succeeded in apprehending the applicant who in the course of the chase dropped a bundle of coins taken from the salon. When the victim arrived at the scene he promptly identified the applicant as being one of the robbers.

3. In imposing sentence the judge stated that normally an armed robbery in private premises would attract sentence of between 6 and 7 years, but that as the applicant was only 21 years of age, had a clear record and pleaded guilty, he was disposed to be lenient. Although the applicant pleaded guilty, the circumstances of his apprehension were such that he really had little choice to do otherwise. He was therefore entitled to receive at most a small discount on account of his plea. This is a frivolous application. Had the judge imposed a sentence of between 6 and 7 years we would not have been disposed to interfere. The application for leave to appeal is refused and we order that three months of the time served between the filing of the application and the hearing do not count towards sentence.