R. v. WONG CHI WAI

No. 311 of 1995
(Criminal)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Ryan, J. :

1. The appellant was convicted of 6 charges of blackmail and 3 charges of theft in the District Court. He was sentenced to a total of 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment and he now seeks leave to appeal against those terms of imprisonment.

2. The brief facts of the case were that the appellant and two of his associates visited shops in the Whampoa Plaza and made unwarranted demands for money, with menaces.

3. The District Judge in respect of Charges 1 and 2 which were related blackmail and theft charges took 12 months as his starting point and gave a 3 months discount in respect of each reflecting the appellant's plea of guilty. He ordered that the sentences be served concurrently. In respect of Charges 3 and 4 which were also blackmail and theft related charges he took the same approach as indeed he did with Charges 8 and 9 which were again blackmail and theft related. In respect of Charges 5, 6 and 7 which were blackmail charges with no associated theft charges, he took 9 months as his starting point and gave a 3 months reduction for the pleas of guilty. He ordered that the sentences in respect of each separate event be served consecutively which produced the total sentence of 3 years and 9 months.

4. The appellant's home-made grounds of appeal are first, that he had pleaded guilty. The District Judge dealt with this and clearly set out his starting point in respect of sentencing and the reduction which he had given for the guilty plea. Secondly, that he is repentant. This is reflected in the pleas of guilty. Thirdly, that he is the sole breadwinner of his family and they would be severely affected if he remains in prison. This, of course, is a common consequence of criminal activities. Fourthly, the appellant asks that his sentences be served concurrently.

5. The District Judge dealt with the question of consecutive and concurrent sentences. He imposed concurrent sentences where the blackmail and theft charges were related and consecutive sentences where different victims were involved or where the appellant had returned for a second time to make further threats. He was correct to adopt this approach. We have considered the totality principle and are of the view that the total sentence of 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment is not in any way excessive.

6. The appellant today makes complaint that the District Judge did not reflect in his sentences the fact that he had offered to plead guilty at the police station. The prosecution do not accept that this was the case, but in any event no reduction in sentence is warranted. The leave to appeal against sentence is refused. We consider that this appeal has no merit whatsoever and order a loss of 2 months time.