THE QUEEN v. IP KAR SUI AND ANOTHER

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

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Yang, J.A.:

1. Between the months of October 1985 and January 1986 a series of street robberies were committed by a group of youths aged between 15 and 20. Accusations were made against the victims that they had stared at the group or previously assaulted a relative of a member of the group. The victims were then taken to a quiet spot where they would be assaulted or threatened with assault, after which the victims would be relieved of their property. The robbers would tie the victims' shoelaces together before making their escape.

2. At the time of the offence, D3 Ip was 18 and D4 Yau was 19. D3 pleaded guilty to three charges of such robberies and was sentenced to a training centre. D4 pleaded guilty to five charges of robbery and was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on each charge, sentences to run concurrently but consecutively to a sentence of three years he is now serving.

3. The Probation Officer's report on D3 indicates that she has been deprived of parental control for a number of years, and her grandmother is quite unable to have any sort of influence over her. She was convicted of common assault in January last year and sent to a training centre. On appeal to the High Court, an order for probation was substituted for the order for training centre. Today, she asks to be sent to prison instead. She advances no reason for her wish.

4. D4 is at the moment serving a sentence for a robbery which he committed in July 1985 in a toilet in Tuen Mun. D4 asks for the two sets of sentences to run concurrently.

5. We are mindful of the possibility that if these robberies had been brought before a judge on a single charge sheet - as could easily have happened, the street robberies having been committed while D4 was on bail awaiting trial for the toilet robbery - a global sentence of seven years for D4 might well have been considered to be too high having regard to his youth and the fact that in spite of his previous convictions he had never been to prison before. In our view a totality of five years for the toilet robbery as well as the street robberies would be sufficient punishment.

6. For these reasons we would allow D4's application, treat the application as an appeal and order that part of the four years, for the present case run concurrently with the three years for the toilet robbery. The effect is that he will serve the first year of the three years' sentence, after which the remainder of the' three years' sentence will run concurrently with the four years' sentences in the present case, thereby making a total of 5 years.

7. D3's application is refused.