THE QUEEN v. CHOW YUE

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

Ching JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was convicted of four offences in the District Court. The first three were for robberies and the fourth was for remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed in Hong Kong unlawfully. He originally sought leave to appeal against both sentence and conviction, but before us he abandoned his application for leave to appeal against conviction. We gave leave for him so to abandon.

2. All three robberies occurred on the same day in the same district and within a very short period of time, that is to say, in about one hour. The applicant was armed with a paper cutter and one of the victims sustained injuries to his head and face. The evidence came from each of the three victims who identified the applicant. What is more, the applicant was found in possession of some of the stolen property and led the police to the recovery of some of the rest. He pleaded guilty to the fourth charge. On the 3rd day of the trial at which he was represented by solicitor and counsel, he changed his plea and admitted not only the robbery charges but the facts in relation to them which were read out to him. There would have been absolutely no merit in an appeal against any of these convictions.

3. Before us, the applicant has advanced matters of fact which even if relevant would be matters for the Judge. In the circumstances described the sentence imposed by the Judge below was 15 months imprisonment on the fourth charge. That accords with the usual tariff and nothing has been said to show that it was wrong.

4. In relation to the 3 robbery charges the Judge rightly declined to regard the offences as all arising from the same facts. They did not. The only connection amongst them was that they were all robberies carried out in the same district in the same manner and by the same person. The Judge imposed a global sentence of 5 years and 5 months and ordered that the sentences be served concurrently. These robberies were vicious and violent. The applicant showed no remorse and indeed has shown no remorse before us. He did not plead guilty until it had become obvious even to him that he had not chance of escaping the consequences of his acts. The manner in which his defence was conducted was not calculated to engender any sympathy for him nor has the manner of his conduct for this application to appeal.

5. The applications ought never to have been made. Not only were they hopeless but in the course of addressing us the applicant saw fit to make serious and unsubstantiated allegations against his own counsel, the trial judge and the police.

6. The applications for leave to appeal against sentence is also dismissed and we order loss of time of three months.