THE QUEEN v. LEE PUN-CHUNG

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Bewley, J.

1. Lee Pun-chung, who seeks leave to appeal against sentence, originally pleaded not guilty to eight charges in the District Court. After the trial had commenced and six witnesses had been called before Judge Cameron, he pleaded guilty to four of these charges, namely two charges of robbery, one of assault with intent to rob and one of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place.

2. The applicant's modus operandi was similar in each case. He approached a lone female leaving or entering her flat in Oi Man Estate. In the third charge he put his arm around her neck and snatched her purse before fleeing. In the fourth charge he pushed her against a wall, pointed an 8-inch knife at her face, injuring her lip, and snatched her purse from her hand; he then fled. On the sixth charge he kicked the woman and snatched her handbag, but she held on to her bag and the applicant escaped.  In the third and sixth charges the applicant was completely naked. At the time of the fourth charge he wore a woman's skirt. He was arrested when a plain clothes sergeant saw the applicant in a garbage room; he was taking off his shorts and holding a chopper. This is the subject of the eighth charge. All the offences took place between 28th June and 16th July.

3. The applicant is now just 21 and has two previous convictions. He was sent to a Detention Centre for robbery in 1984, and fined $500 for handling in 1985. The judge called for a psychiatrist's report because of the applicant's strange predilection for wearing no clothes or a woman's skirt. No evidence of mental illness was found and the psychiatrist said that no treatment was required.

4. The applicant is the eldest of four children the was educated to Form 2. He worked in a factory and in his grandmother's shop. He was a security guard for 3 months until the day of the first robbery.  The probation officer reported he had been mixing with bad company and staying away from home at night; he had no determination to reform and denied committing the offences. Probation was not recommended. His parents described him as simple-minded and easily influenced. The Commissioner of Correctional Services report said he was co-operative, though defensive, but behaved himself on remand. The was suitable for the Detention Centre, but not for the Training Centre on account of the offensive weapon charge.

5. The judge took the view, rightly in our opinion, that a Detention Centre order was not appropriate. He had not benefited from his first visit and the offence was serious. A prison sentence was therefore inevitable.

6. There was very little to be said in mitigation of sentence - merely his belated guilty plea, which saved the time of the court to some extent, and his youth. He was sentenced to five years concurrent on the two robberies and the assault with intent to rob charges, and one year concurrent on the offensive weapon charge. The fourth charge, the one involving the knife, is the gravest. There was no evidence how serious the lip injury was. The judge did not mention it, and it may therefore be assumed it was trivial.

7. In the light of guidelines given by the Court of Appeal, in R. v. MO Kwong-sang⁽¹⁾ in particular, a sentence of seven years after trial is appropriatefor this category of robbery. Five years cannot be said to be excessive on a plea of guilty, particularly when the other, less serious, offences are taken into account. The judge was right to order the sentences to run concurrently. We are satisfied that these are proper sentences. The application for leave to appeal is refused.

8. Since the applicant has not persisted in denying, his guilt, we order that the sentences run from the date on which they were imposed.

(1) Cr. Appeal 359 of 1981