HKSAR v. YEUNG PAK FUNG

CACC 457/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 457 OF 1998

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 507/98)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Mayo J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The Applicant was convicted of two counts of robbery and one count of remaining in Hong Kong without the consent of the Director of Immigration. He was sentenced to a total of 4 1/2 years imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed.

2. Both of the robberies were of a similar nature. The victims were unaccompanied women returning home in the early hours of the morning. The target was their handbags. In each case the Applicant committed the offence in the company of another illegal immigrant who was a co-defendant in the trial below which was before H.H. Judge Line. The first offence was committed on 19th March 1998 and the second on 22nd March 1998.

3. The victim of the second robbery didn't immediately report the offence to the police. On the following morning when she was in a taxi passing the scene of the robbery she saw the two men who had robbed her the previous morning. She immediately made a report to the police who went and arrested the men. The victim of the first robbery had made a report to the police shortly after the incident. She was able to identify the men at an identification parade. In addition to this the Applicant made an inculpatory cautioned statement to the police concerning the 22nd March robbery. He admitted that he had received $200 from his co-accused shortly after the robbery.

4. The Judge calculated the sentences in the following manner.

5. On the first charge 3 years imprisonment. On the second charge 3 years imprisonment, which will commence to run after the Applicant served 1 year of the sentence on charge one, making a total of 4 years. On the immigration charge the Judge imposed the sentence of 15 months imprisonment which he ordered to commence after the Applicant has served 27 months of the sentence on charge two, thereby adding 6 months to the 4 years, making a total of 4 1/2 years.

6. The sentences imposed for the robberies were merciful sentences having regard to the surrounding circumstances and in particular the cowardly nature of the robberies. The Applicant was indeed fortunate that the whole of the immigration charge sentence was not ordered to be served consecutively.

7. In his application the Applicant referred to his difficult family circumstances. He also referred us to several other cases where lesser sentences were imposed. We did not find these to be of assistance. The circumstances of different cases vary substantially.

8. This application is without merit and is dismissed. We order that 2 months of the time he has spent in custody will not count towards his sentence.