THE QUEEN v. POON PING-KEUNG

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Kempster, JA :

1. This is the judgment of the Court.

2. On 14 June 1989 in the High Court Poon Ping Keung pleaded guilty before Hooper J to eleven counts of attempted robbery, to nine counts of robbery and to one count each of attempting to cause an explosion, of causing an explosion and of possessing explosives. He was convicted accordingly. On 21 July Poon was sentenced to ten years imprisonment concurrent for each attempted robbery; to twelve years imprisonment concurrent for each robbery, to run concurrently with the sentences for attempted robbery, to four years imprisonment for attempting to cause an explosion, consecutively; to three years imprisonment for causing an explosion and to two years imprisonment for possessing explosives to run concurrently. The effect of these sentences was to impose an overall term of sixteen years imprisonment. Against these sentences Poon seeks leave to appeal.

3. The offences were committed between 17 June 1987 and 20 February 1989; a protracted period. The applicant attempted to rob or succeeded in robbing various banks by producing notes demanding money and stating that he was possessed of a gun or of a bomb. If there was no response to the implicit threat or after money had been paid he fled. Throughout he acted alone. On five occasions he produced a bottle and on another a container and a lighter to support his claim to be carrying a petrol bomb. Once he lit a supposed fuse. This was the subject matter of the count of attempting to cause an explosion. On another occasion the applicant in fact caused an explosion.

4. The final count, of possessing explosives, derived from the discovery at his home on 20 February 1989, being the day of his arrest, of a bottle containing liquid thinner with a wick or fuse attached.

5. According to my calculations, which the Crown have kindly confirmed, and which differ from those of the trial judge the applicant secured $171,070 from his crimes all of which followed the common pattern. The difference between $171,070 and the figure of $219,270 found by the judge is not significant in context. A long overall sentence was obviously called for. The applicant's pleas and previous good character were taken into account as was the totality principle. Hooper J also intended that the sentence he passed should act as a deterrent to similarly minded persons. we do not think that he thereby disregarded the applicant's personal circumstances. Sentences for crimes such as these are primarily determined by reference to their gravity.

6. The applicant prays in aid the fact that, in the event, he injured no one and now expresses remorse. In particular he is concerned for the proper upbringing and education of his son. As we have said time and time again those minded to engage in criminal activities must consider the effect of their behaviour on their dependents at that stage rather than after they have been brought before the court. We cannot fault the judge on the individual or overall sentences imposed and the application for leave to appeal against them must be dismissed.