R. v. POON MOON-CHIU

HEADNOTE

Four staircase robberies in which victims were menaced with a knife. applicant who was eighteen years' old pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a totality of imprisonment for eight years. The Court of Appeal held - despite the youth of the applicant, his plea of guilty and his remorseful attitude, the sentences were proper ones.

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Power, J.A.:

1. This is the judgment of the Court.

2. This applicant pleaded guilty to four counts of robbery and was sentenced by Deputy Judge Evans in the High Court to four years on each of the first two counts to be served concurrently and to four years on each of the second two counts also to be served concurrently. However, he ordered that the sentences on the second two counts be consecutive to the sentences on the first two counts, making a totality of imprisonment for eight years. The applicant now appeals against those sentences.

3. The robberies took place in the Shamshuipo district on the l1th, 12th 16th and 18th of April 1991. Each was a staircase robbery and in each, the victim was a female from whom all that she was carrying of value was taken. In each, the victim was menaced with a knife. In the first and second, gold necklaces were torn from the victim's neck. In the second and third the victims were accompanied by small children. The first three victims were assaulted and in the second and third offences, each of the victims suffered minor knife wounds. The trial judge when sentencing said:

"They were all staircase robberies of females. In each case you presented a foot-long knife to the victim's neck. In two of those cases the ladies were actually wounded when they resisted. In all four cases you got off with the property referred to in the charge.

    You are 18 years old and in Hong Kong illegally. I've not called for any reports as any other institutional detention other than prison is inappropriate both as a penalty for these four offences and as regards you personally.

    I've borne in mind what your counsel has said on your behalf and the fact that you do have a clear record which is a matter which I have in mind. But you had not been in Hong Kong long in any event.

    What can be said for you is you've pleaded guilty and done so at an early stage and you can take it that I've allowed a discount off the sentences that otherwise would have been passed upon you because of those pleas.

    Each one of these robberies is a separate and distinct offence, albeit that they were committed over a short space of a week or so. As separate offences they should be separately punished. I must, however, have regard to the overall sentence to be passed upon you."

Mr. Law who appears for the applicant today, submits that the trial judge failed to have any or any sufficient regard to the fact of early plea, to the genuine remorse of the. applicant, to his clear record and his relatively young age and to the circumstances of the offences. He finally urges that, when all of these matters are taken into consideration, the totality of eight years is excessive. We find it difficult to see how it can be suggested that the trial judge did not have regard to early plea, clear record and age as these were matters to which he made specific reference when sentencing. We also find it difficult to understand how it can be suggested that he did not have regard to the circumstances of the offences. He clearly bore the pertinent circumstances very much in mind when assessing his sentence.

4. The real issue in this appeal is whether the total sentence was excessive. We were referred to the cases of The Queen v. Chung Man-kit Criminal Appeal No.354 of 1989and The Queen v. Chiu Ping-kei Criminal Appeal No.433 of 1987. We did not find any real assistance, except as regards approach, from these two cases.

5. In each of the present offences, the circumstances were serious. Four defenceless females were robbed at knife point, two of them were wounded. When we bear in mind that there were four separate offences, we find ourselves quite unpersuaded that eight years was excessive. Despite the youth of the applicant, his plea and the fact that he is remorseful, we are not persuaded that there is anything in these sentences which calls for our interference. The applications for leave to appeal against the sentences are therefore dismissed.