HKSAR v. SINGH Sandeep AND ANOTHER

CACC 112/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 1240 OF 2003)

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The two applicants were convicted of a joint charge of attempted robbery by Judge W Wong in the District Court after trial. They were each sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment.

2. Both applicants now seek leave to appeal against the sentence, claiming that it is too heavy.

3. The attempted robbery was one committed by both applicants jointly on a taxi driver. They boarded the taxi in Tsimshatsui at some time after 10 pm on 22 April 2003 and asked the driver to go to the industrial area of Tsing Yi Island. At the destination, when the taxi stopped, one of the applicants tried to snatch the driver's handbag but the driver put up a struggle. The two applicants fled. The driver gave chase but later lost sight of them near an industrial building. A bystander who witnessed the chase made a report to the police. Eventually the two applicants were found by the police in a staircase on the ground floor of the industrial building, sleeping.

4. Both applicants were aged 19 years when they committed the crime. They had clear record. The judge had taken all these into account. In passing sentence, the judge said:

"... Taxi robbery is serious offence because most of the time it was done at night and they [taxi drivers] were told to go to a quiet spot. The taxi driver is alone and is most vulnerable and it is very difficult to get help. So a deterrent sentence is inevitable. It is fortunate that in this case we have Mr Wong [the bystander] who was there to help and report to the police immediately.

2. You have shown no remorse and there are no mitigating factors. In view of the fact that both of you have clear records, I take a starting point of 4 years and sentence you to 4 years' imprisonment."

5. The court takes a serious view of taxi robbery and considers it necessary to impose heavy deterrent sentences for such offences for the protection of the usually vulnerable taxi drivers. This attitude of the court can be seen from R v Tran Van Anh [1993] 2 HKCLR 122 at 124, followed by Secretary for Justice v Tso Tsz Kin, CAAR 1/2003, at page 10 para 24, and HKSAR v Dhillon Kenneth Simon, CACC 90/2002, where it was said that this Court would not interfere with sentences of 5 or 6 years as a starting point for such an offence. It has also been said by this Court that family circumstances can hardly amount to a mitigating factor for serious offences such as robberies.

6. In the present case, the starting point of 4 years' imprisonment adopted by the judge could only be said to be lenient to the applicants. Even taking into account their age and clear record, the 4 years' imprisonment imposed by the judge cannot be said to be excessive, let alone manifestly excessive.

7. In the circumstances, there can be no valid ground of appeal, and the application must be dismissed.