THE QUEEN v. TAM SUN LAM

Headstone

Robbery and possession of firearms at the time of committing a robbery. Appeal against concurrent sentences of 11 years' imprisonment. Offence was a bad one which involved a degree of viciousness. Held on appeal that the trial judge was right to arrive at a starting point of 13 years by taking 10 years as the starting point for a robbery using but not firing a firearm and adding 3 years thereto on account of the aggravating factors. The deduction of 2 years for a late plea of guilty was adequate in the circumstance. Appeal dismissed.

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Power, J.A.:

1. This is the judgment of the Court.

2. The applicant was involved with four other offenders in a very serious robbery in which firearms were used. He pleaded guilty to two counts: robbery and possession of firearms at the time of committing a robbery and was sentenced to eleven years' imprisonment on each, the sentences being ordered to run concurrently.

3. The trial judge when sentencing summed up the facts succinctly when he said:

 

"The starting point for committing a robbery using but not firing a firearm is about 10 years. There are aggravating factors in this case. The robbery took place in the very early hours of the morning. There were six victims of whom three were women and one was a girl of eleven.

 

        The victims were gagged, blindfolded and their thumbs tied together with copper wire. They were dragged or pushed into a room. One of the victims, a woman tourist, had a pistol held to her head. She asked not to be killed and she was struck several times on the head and she sustained quite serious head injuries. These aggravating factors attract in my view an additional sentence of three years."

4. We pause here to remark that the trial judge's view of the seriousness of this offence was well merited. This was a very bad offence indeed in which a degree of viciousness was exhibited. The trial judge was, in our view, by no means wrong in his conclusion that it merited overall a sentence of thirteen years.

                The trial judge went on to say:

 

"The 1st, 2nd and 4th accused pleaded guilty and agreed to give evidence for the prosecution in respect of the 5th accused. The 5th accused pleaded guilty after ne had read one or more of the statements by these three accused."

 

He then stated that he would, because of the cooperation of the 1st, 2nd and 4th accused, be prepared to allow them a 50% reduction on their sentences. While this was a generous reduction as it brought the sentences down to a totality of six and a half years. It was, nonetheless, we are satisfied, a matter in which the trial judge was entitled to make the assessment which he did. In respect of the 3rd accused, who pleaded guilty and gave information leading to the arrest of the 5th accused, he allowed a deduction of 30%.   

                The 5th accused, who is the applicant today, was allowed a deduction for his pleas of guilty. He has today urged us to bear in mind that he received the longest sentence of the five offenders. This is quite correct but the reasons why this was so were good ones and were made plain by the trial judge in the sentencing process.

                The applicant has urged upon us that he cooperated with the police. There is nothing in the record as we have it that shows any degree of cooperation until the very last moment when, seeing the impossible position which he faced, he was prepared to enter a plea of guilty. Nothing has been placed before us which indicates that the sentences imposed were in any way wrong and there are no grounds for us interfering therewith.

                The application is refused.