R. v. LO CHI MAN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 815
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

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

1. The applicant Lo Chi-man appears before us in person seeking leave to appeal against sentence.

2. The admitted facts are that in the early hours of the morning of 11th November 1993 the applicant with two other males entered the Shell Petrol Station on Peak Road. They threatened the attendant on duty with a 12-inch knife and took $3,000 from the till. The attendant was then tied up with a piece of tape and the three culprits made their escape in the car in which they had arrived. Two of them were arrested and convicted. However, the applicant absconded to Macau and did not return until September 1995 when he was arrested. He made a full admission of the offence to the police and pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery before Her Honour Judge Beeson on 16th November 1995. She sentenced him to imprisonment for 4 years and 9 months.

3. In seeking leave to appeal against sentence, the applicant complains that the other two co-accused received terms of imprisonment of 4 years and 4 years 6 months. Inter alia, he complains that his period of absence in Macau was held against him.

4. What the judge said in sentencing him was this:

"You absconded soon after the robbery in 1993 and went to Macau where you stayed until September 1995. Your counsel says you are remorseful, but it is difficult to see that that is the case in view of your lengthy absconding.

The only mitigation in your favour is your plea of guilty, although you cannot expect the same discount of that plea as you would have received if you had pleaded at the same time as your companion in crime.

The appropriate starting point for conviction after trial on a robbery of this nature is 6 years. Giving you a discount for your plea you will be sentenced to 4 years and 9 months."

5. In recent times particularly, this Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of giving an adequate discount for pleas of guilty, which should be of the order of one-third. The discount not merely recognises remorse, but the considerable benefit that enures to the courts and the expeditious administration of justice. The latter is served no less by a plea that comes to be made long after the crime. Indeed, by then the chances of a successful prosecution may be much diminished. Moreover, in the present context, a plea delayed by the offender absconding from the jurisdiction is little different from detection or apprehension being delayed by the offender successfully covering his tracks or lying low.

6. The applicant's full admission to the police followed by his plea saved the police, the prosecution and the courts the work and time that would otherwise have been required. We are unable to see any good reason for denying the applicant the usual discount of one-third. Accordingly, we grant leave to appeal and treat the application as the appeal, allow it, set aside the sentence and substitute a sentence of 4 years.