HKSAR v. CHAN WING YIN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No.570
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Power, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was convicted of murder and attempted robbery after trial before Leong J. (as he then was). He was sentenced on 4th August 1995 to life imprisonment on the murder offence and to five years concurrent on the robbery offence. He appealed against his conviction submitting that the trial judge had failed to direct the jury as to self-defence and provocation. His appeal was dismissed.

2. The facts, which are fully set out in the appeal decision, revealed a dreadful murder which was aggravated by the fact that it was committed in the course of a planned robbery, the victim being an elderly lady who, it was thought, would be alone in her home at the time when the robbery was being committed. The applicant was one of two robbers and the murder came about because a grandson of the old lady returned home while the robbery was in progress, attempted to intervene and was then attacked and stabbed 47 times, one of those stab wounds being fatal.

3. The applicant was 15 years of age at the time of the offence and he said that he had taken a disinhibiting drug known as "Little Cross" before committing the offences. He now seeks through Mr. Poll, who appears for him today, pursuant to s.2 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, to ask us to exercise our discretion to order that he be given a determinate sentence.

4. We have had placed before us, and have considered, letters from his parents, from a former teacher and from the applicant himself. He states that he is studying in prison, he expresses acute remorse, and he indicates that he now realized the wicked criminality of his offence.

5. We have given careful consideration to this application. It is for us to decide whether, in all of these circumstances, it would be appropriate to exercise our discretion. We are satisfied that it would not. We do not consider that this court should interfere in the sentence that was imposed for a grave offence according to law and the application is, therefore, dismissed.