THE QUEEN v. CHAN KWOK-MING AND OTHERS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

_____________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Silke, J. A.:

1. The applicant, WONG Wood-ting, was originally charged with four other persons on a three count indictment for robbery. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants pleaded guilty to some of those counts. We are not directly concerned at the moment with them.

2. WONG, the fourth named accused, was tried alone on the three counts. The first of those related to the robbery of the Far East Bank on the 5th December; the second to the robbery of the Banque Nationale de Paris in Nathan Road on the 12th January and the third to a robbery of the same bank at its Chekiang Street Branch on the 23rd January.

3. It was the ease for the Crown that on each of those occasions two men had entered. the respective banks- one with a pistol and one with a knife. The bank employees were threatened, money was taken and a get-away was made in a stolen car. The case against the applicant in particular was that he was the driver of the car with full knowledge of that which was taking place and the part he was playing in those robberies.

4. The evidence in respect of the first and the second counts was confessional evidence alone. On the third count there was a confession and that which Mr. Keane, who appears for him today, very fairly said was supportive evidence.

5. The application for leave to appeal against conviction relates to the first and second counts only.

6. It is correct that in the main confessional statement the preamble related solely to the third count. The applicant, first of all, admitted to a robbery with which he was not subsequently charged and then, on the face of it, admitted to the three robberies but on dates which were inaccurate and with a detail as to a car which was also inaccurate - in the sense that the make was misnamed.

7. It has been submitted to us that those portions of the statement relating to the charges did not contain sufficient detail, details which one would expect in a confessional statement and which would show these statements to be true.

8. All these matters were fully canvassed before the jury at trial. There is no criticism made of the summing-up or of the admissibility of the evidence itself.It was entirely a jury matter as to whether they did or did not place significance upon the discrepancies in detail and it was entirely a matter for them.what, if any weight, they were prepared to place upon these statements. That they did place weight is evidenced by the convictions. They were entitled so to do and in those circumstances we do not think that the convictions were, and we have been asked to consider solely then on this basis, unsafe and unsatisfactory. Nor do we harbour any lurking doubt.

9. The applications in relation to conviction will therefore be refused.

Sentence

10. WONG Wood-ting having abandoned his application for leave to appeal against sentence, we are now concerned with the applications by the 2nd and 3rd defendants in relation to the totality of fifteen years in respect of the 2nd and fourteen years in respect of the 3rd passed on them at trial.

11. It is necessary, however, to make reference to the sentence passed on the 4th defendant, WONG, who had been, after trial, convicted upon three counts of robbery and upon whom a sentence in totality of fifteen years was passed.

12. Both the 2nd and the 3rd defendants had pleaded guilty. This Court has said before that those who plead guilty, thus saving the time of the Court and considerable expense, are to be encouraged in this courage as are those who assist the police in. apprehending other persons involved with them in crimes.

13. It could well be that the sentence passed upon WONG was too low. He was the driver but he was nevertheless fully involved in the three bank robberies. In each of those robberies a pistol, accepted as being an imitation pistol but nevertheless pistol, and a knife were carried. He was fully aware of that.

14. That having been said, it seems to us that not sufficient discount was allowed for the pleas of guilty by the 2nd and the 3rd defendants. The trial judge had distinguished between them by giving the 3rd one year less than the 2nd, and that is a distinction which we intend to maintain. We think that the proper sentence in the circumstances of this particular case would, in respect of the 2nd defendant, have been a totality of twelve and, in respect of the 3rd defendant, a totality of eleven years' imprisonment.

15. Their applications are therefore granted, the appeals allowed and a sentence of twelve years substituted on each count concurrent in respect of D2; in respect of D3 eleven years substituted on each count, again concurrent.