R. v. LAM KAM HON

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 355
(Criminal)

_____________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Liu, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant appears before us in person. He was charged with one count of robbery.

2. On 7 May 1993, in Wong Chuk Hang Estate, he and his co-accused robbed Madam Fung of one gold necklace with two pendants, one wallet containing cash $550 Hong Kong currency, one Hong Kong Identity Card and one Hongkong Bank ETC card. He was found guilty as charged and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. He applies for leave to appeal against both sentence and conviction.

3. In his home-made grounds, it is stated that he feels aggrieved by the conviction because the victim was unable to make any positive identification. There was also, so he wrote, insufficient evidence against him.

4. As far as his application for leave to appeal against sentence is concerned, his only ground is that it is too severe.

5. It was a staircase robbery. The applicant was alleged to have robbed Madam Fung in the presence of her two young daughters. On 7 May 1993, at 6 o'clock in the evening, in a staircase, the applicant pointed a knife at the neck of the elder daughter of Madam Fung, aged four. The items set out in the charge were taken from Madam Fung.

6. Shortly after the robbery, at about 6:30 in the same evening, the applicant together with his co-accused and another man were seen by a police officer selling a damaged gold chain in a goldsmith shop. The applicant made his way out of the shop hurriedly. His co-accused and the other man were intercepted by the police officer. After a short inquiry, those two men were both allowed to go.

7. Twelve days after the robbery, on 19 May 1993, the applicant was arrested. At the time of his arrest, the applicant made a verbal confession to the arresting officer. Thereafter he made a confessional statement in writing. The statement was admitted by the judge after a voir dire and the applicant was duly convicted after trial .

8. The ground in support of the applicant's application for leave to appeal against conviction is wholly unmeritorious despite the victim's failure to identify him or anyone else in the identification parade.

9. The judge sentenced the applicant to five years' imprisonment. The judge noted a in Hong Kong case which provides guidelines for robbery offences. Indeed, the robbery committed by the applicant was serious and it was so described by the judge. The applicant has previous convictions. In the light of the use of a weapon, pointing at the neck of the victim's four-year old elder daughter and the robbing of her bank card in a staircase at that time of the evening, the term of imprisonment imposed upon the applicant by the judge can, in no way, be said to be manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

10. His application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed as is his application for leave to appeal against conviction.