THE QUEEN v. WONG SIU KEUNG AND OTHERS

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

Bewley, J.

1. This is the judgment of the Court.

2. On the 11th April, 1991, seven defendants, including these three applicants, pleaded guilty to a number of charges in the District Court before Judge Moylan. The 1st applicant, that is the 3rd defendant at trial, was convicted of robbery on the first charge. His role had been to keep watch in a restaurant while his accomplice followed a man into the toilet. That defendant hit the victim on the neck, pointed a knife at his waist, gagged him and tied his hands with plastic straps. He then relieved him of cash, a watch and some jewellery, the total value of which was $50,500. Only the watch was recovered. That was on the 27th August, 1990.

3. On the 12th September, 1990, the police raided the 3rd applicant's home and four other defendants were found there including the 1st and 2nd applicants. All four were illegal immigrants. A search of the premises revealed plastic straps similar to those used in the robbery and four. knives. The three applicants were unable to give satisfactory accounts of their possession of the knives. (second charge)

4. The 3rd applicant admitted sheltering the 1st and 2nd applicants and promising them money and providing them. with money and clothes knowing that they were illegal immigrants. He was consequently charged in the sixth and seventh charges with aiding and abetting them to remain.

5. The 2nd applicant admitted receiving $1,000, a gold bracelet and a gold necklace, which were stolen from the victim of the robbery on the 27th August. He sold the jewellery to a goldsmith shop for $6,000. (fourth charge)

6. Finally, the 1st and 2nd applicants pleaded guilty to remaining in Hong Kong without authority. (9th & 10th charges)

7. The 1st and 2nd applicants had clear records. The 3rd applicant, who had been in Hong Kong for ten years, had two previous convictions for obtaining property by deception in 1986 and for attempting to do so in 1987. On the second occasion he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and a nine months suspended sentence was activated.

8. It was conceded by the Crown that the 1st applicant did not know that the knife was going to be used in the robbery. It was submitted on behalf of the 2nd applicant that he received the necklace and the bracelet in lieu of wages for some decoration work that he had done for the 3rd applicant and that he had not known about the robbery.

The 3rd applicant was a painter earning $350 a day. He had helped the 1st and 2nd applicants because they were friends.

9. The 1st applicant was sentenced on the first charge of robbery to three years imprisonment and on the second charge possessing offensive weapons to four months concurrent, and on the ninth charge of remaining without authority to six months consecutive, making a total of 3 1/2 years.

10. The 2nd applicant was sentenced to four months imprisonment on the second charge, to 18 months concurrent on the fourth charge of handling, and to six months consecutive on the tenth charge of remaining without authority, making a total of two years imprisonment.

11. The 3rd applicant was sentenced to four months imprisonment on the second charge, to 2 1/2 years consecutive on the sixth charge of aiding and abetting remaining in Hong Kong, and on the other aiding and abetting charge, the seventh charge, a concurrent sentence of 2 1/2 years imprisonment, making a total of 2 years 10 months imprisonment.

12. In his grounds of appeal the lst applicant pleaded that he did not physically participate in the robbery.  He said his parents were in poor health and there was no one to care for his son and he pointed out that he had pleaded guilty. The 2nd applicant also pointed out that he had pleaded guilty, as did the 3rd applicant, who also said he was confused when he was assisting the illegal immigrants and that he was responsible for his mother's living and medical expenses. Today he has added that his mother is suffering from cancer and is in a critical condition and he would like to see her before she dies.

13. We have considered all these matters, but we are satisfied that the sentences passed by the judge in respect of all three applicants were proper sentences and we refuse the applications for leave to appeal.