HKSAR v. WU LEE KWAN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No.545
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Stuart Moore, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 21st August, 1997, the Applicant pleaded guilty before Judge Kilgour in the District Court to the offences of robbery and remaining in Hong Kong without authority. He received a sentence of three years and four months on the first of those charges and eight months to be served consecutively on the second, making four years' imprisonment in all. His co-defendant (D2) received the same sentences for the same offences but he has abandoned his application in advance in writing.

2. The robbery was a typically nasty offence where a lone walker on a footpath in North District Park was grabbed round the neck, pushed to the ground and robbed of his property. When the offenders were caught soon afterwards they still had some of the money they had stolen on them. They bore the fresh injuries inflicted on them by the victim who had valiantly tried to fight off his attackers. They were also identified by the victim.

3. The Applicant's grounds of appeal are that the judge failed to take into account what the Applicant regards as the minor nature of this robbery. He says, rightly, that the judge in the course of his judgment said "Robbery is robbery", but where the Applicant is wrong is that the judge was mindful of the nature of this particular robbery and, in particular, that there was no weapon used. He went to say:

"I accept that there was no weapon used in this case and that there is no lasting injury to the victim."

4. Other grounds of appeal are in writing. The judge took account of the plea of guilty to what was, of course, the Applicant's first offence. We are not assisted by the information given to us by the Applicant that there may be robbers who have benefited from very lenient sentences. We are naturally sorry to hear that the Applicant's parents are not well, but that is not a matter we can take into account on sentence.

5. The trial judge dealt with this Applicant with remarkable leniency. If he erred at all, it was in favour of the Applicant because the sentence on the second charge should have been 15 months' imprisonment consecutive, where the judge only imposed eight months.

6. The application must, therefore, be dismissed. Because this was an application which is without any merit at all, this Applicant will lose three months of the time he has already served, which means that that period will not be reckoned as part of his sentence. I am afraid the Applicant must now as a result serve longer.