CHONG MUK LUNG v. R.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1993, No. 178
(Criminal)

__________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon. Yang, CJ

1. In this application the applicant Chong Muk-lung seeks leave to appeal against his conviction of murder and against a totality of sentences of fifteen years in respect of thirteen charges of robbery and theft to which he pleaded guilty.

2. We shall first deal with his application for leave to appeal against the conviction of murder. Two Grounds of Appeal have been advanced before us this morning. The first complaint is that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the evidence of the two hotel cleaners who were employed in the hotel where the death occurred. The applicant says that the evidence of these two hotel cleaners was in fact inconsistent but the judge in the summing up to the jury incorrectly told them that it was consistent. The second complaint is that the judge did not sufficiently direct the jury on the alternative verdict of manslaughter.

3. Briefly the prosecution case against the applicant was this:

On the 30th of December, 1991 he went to the New China Palace Night Club and there he was introduced to a hostess whom he later took out to the President Hotel where he rented room C5. He and the hostess had sex and later he robbed her at knife point of her golden necklace, pendant and Hong Kong Bank ETC card. The applicant then left the room leaving the hostess inside. Shortly afterwards, two employees of the hotel went into the room and discovered the body of the hostess lying on the bed, face down and covered with a blanket. She was tied round the mouth, the neck, the hands at her back, and her feet were tied with torn pieces of towel. Medical examination by the pathologist reviewed that the cause of death was ligature strangulation. It was therefore the prosecution case that the deceased hostess was killed by the applicant who strangled her with the towel round her neck. There was evidence of an employee of the nightclub who saw the applicant escorting the hostess out of the club and there was also evidence from employees of the hotel who saw the applicant going into the hotel with her.

4. At the end of the judge's summing up, he referred to the possibility of an alternative verdict of manslaughter. He said this:

"Members of the jury, if you are sure that the defendant by armlocking the deceased's neck killed the deceased and the defendant did not have the intent to kill or to cause really serious bodily harm to the deceased, you will return a verdict of manslaughter."

5. There is in our view nothing in either of the two Grounds of Appeal advanced before us this morning. The judge sufficiently dealt with the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and he correctly dealt with the issue of manslaughter. The application for leave to appeal against conviction in respect of the murder count is therefore refused.

6. As to the robberies and theft, the modus operandi in each case was similar. He would arrive at a nightclub, have a hostess introduced to him and then take her out to a room in a hotel where, with or without first having sex with her, would produce a cutter or knife and rob the hostess of her belongings. In the course of the robbery or theft, he would tie up the victim, blindfold her and sometimes gag her. Some of the items of stolen property were recovered at a later stage. All the robberies and theft were committed in the month of December 1991 or thereabouts.

7. In our judgment, the applicant having indulged in some thirteen cases of robberies and theft within a very short period of time, a substantial sentence of imprisonment is obviously called for. There may be other robbery cases where the sentences were higher or lower than that imposed upon this applicant, but each case must be decided on its own merits. Circumstances of the offences may be different; personal circumstances of the accused may be different. We cannot say in all the circumstances of the present application that the individual sentences imposed or the totality of them indicated that the trial judge was wrong in principle or that the totality was manifestly excessive. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is therefore also refused.