THE QUEEN v. MO FAI-KI

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

_______

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Li, V.-P.:

1. Now that the application for leave to appeal against conviction has been disposed of, we come to deal with his application for leave to appeal against sentence.

2. Having heard learned counsel, we are mindful of the past record of the applicant that in June 1984 he was convicted of a sexual offence and assaulting a police officer; in September 1984 he was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm: For neither of such offences had he been sent to prison. On January 1985 he was convicted of one charge of robbery before the Magistrate and for that he was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. For the present offence, he has been sentenced to 12 years imprisonment to run consecutively at the expiration of the' 2 years sentence. This, in effect, carries a total of 14 years imprisonment.

3. Our attention has been directed to a series of High Court cases and a few decisions of this Court as regards tariff sentence. These cases show that the tariff sentence for cases of this nature, namely: robbery by two or more persons, victims being tied up, armed with a knife to threaten the victims in domestic premises attracts the average total sentence of something like 9 to 10 years. We have, in this regard, in mind the question of totality of sentence. Taking all into consideration we feel that a total of 14 years imprisonment is excessive.  It is correct that the two robberies were committed at different times. We would not therefore interfere with the order that the two sentences be consecutive. However, we grant leave to appeal against sentence in this particular case, treat the application as the appeal proper. We set aside the sentence of 12 years and substitute therefor a sentence of 9 years, so as to make a total of 11.