HKSAR v. MOHAMMAD MUNIR

CACC 579/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 579 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 861/1999)

__________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Hon Mayo VP (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was convicted of robbery after a trial in the District Court before H H Judge Line. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment and seeks leave to appeal against his sentence.

2. The facts were simple and straight forward. PW1 a diamond salesman was taking a consignment of diamonds in a black case valued at just over $1.5 million from his employer's premises in Nanking Street to Tuen Mun. He saw an Indian or Pakistani man running towards him. The man hit him in the face and tried to wrest the briefcase from him. A struggle ensued and both men fell into a shop close by. Eventually the man got hold of the briefcase and started to run away. PW1 chased him shouting snatching. Other people joined in the chase. The man dropped the briefcase but PW1 and the others continued to chase the man. PW1 attempted to summons assistance through his mobile telephone. He then saw that three of the men who had been chasing the man had caught up with him and apprehended him. Shortly after this police officers arrived and the man who was apprehended was the applicant.

3. The applicant went into the witness box and gave evidence. He said that he had just come out of the nearby vegetable market. He approached a man and asked him if he could offer him employment. The man had said in the most offensive manner that he did not employ people of his race. A heated argument had then ensued and the man was joined by three other men who had assaulted him. He had then approached a police officer and reported the matter to him. The officer had said that the matter should be sorted out at the police station. He had been astonished to learn that he himself had been made the subject of a complaint of robbery.

4. It has to be borne in mind that the applicant resorted to no small amount of violence in his attempts to achieve his ends. It is also unlikely that the applicant was unaware of the very valuable contents of the briefcase.

5. Mr Khosa who represented the applicant referred us to the case of the R v Yau Kwok-tung [1987] HKLR 782. In that case a sentence of 4 years imprisonment was imposed for a robbery when no offensive weapon was used. It was stated this sentence was at the upper end/or the top end of the range of appropriate sentences. In fact very little assistance can be derived from considering sentences imposed in other cases.

6. As we have said, it was a serious robbery. We do not think that the sentence of 4 years imprisonment was one day too long. Accordingly this application is dismissed.