THE QUEEN v. WONG KA PO

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

Kempster, JA :

1. This is the judgment of the Court

2. On 14 June 1989 Wong Ka-po was convicted in the District Court by His Honour Judge Leong of one offence of blackmail and one offence of robbery. He was on the same day sentenced to two years imprisonment for the offence of blackmail and to three years imprisonment for the offence of robbery; both sentences to run concurrently. Against the sentence of three years for robbery he seeks leave to appeal.

3. The circumstances of the offences were somewhat squalid. Apparently the applicant is the day-shift manager of a nightclub in which the complainant is employed as a hostess. On 19 April 1989 some relationship arose between the complainant and a customer who, it later transpired, was a police officer. She accepted money from him in circumstances which could well have given rise to the impression that she was offering or had afforded him sexual services. The club was raided and the applicant, the complainant and another accused, also involved in the administration of the club, were taken to the police station. There the applicant made known to the complainant his displeasure at her conduct in accepting money from the police officer and told her to get back to the club where her behaviour would further be investigated. At the club one of the two accused, not the applicant, assaulted her and both demanded $40,000 as compensation to the owners of the club under threat of further violence. That was the offence of blackmail.

4. Some hours later, in the early hours of the following morning, the applicant, his co-accused and the complainant went to the place where the complainant lived. She was both further assaulted and threatened with assault and under such constraint parted with $3,000 and a bank passbook. This was the robbery.

5. The complainant was then taken back to the club where she was detained for several hours more until rescued by her daughter and the police.

6. It is contended on the applicant's behalf that the sentence of three years for the robbery was excessive having regard not, as was carefully said, to his previous good character but to the very limited nature of his previous offences, to his age, just about 22 years, and to the fact that this was the first occasion upon which a sentence of imprisonment had been passed upon him. Reference was made to R v Yau Kwok-tung 1987 HKLR 782 where it was implicitly suggested that, when no weapon is used or displayed, sentences for robbery may vary between l8 months and four years imprisonment. The sentence here was well within such parameters and, having regard to the length of time that the complainant was bullied and terrified by the applicant and his co-accused - some two or three hours running from 19th to 20th April - followed by the further period of restraint and also to the fact that she suffered some, though not grave, injury we do not think that this is a case where we can say that the judge erred in the overall sentence he passed or that the sentence for robbery was in itself excessive. No more do we think that he failed to take any material factor into consideration. In the circumstances and acknowledging that Mr Bell has made much of what we were disposed to consider an unassailable sentence the application for leave to appeal against it is refused.