HKSAR v. NG WAI KEI and Another

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE HKSAR

1997, No. 59
(Criminal)

^{_____________________}

^{_____________________}

^{_____________________}

J U D G M E N T

^{_____________________}

Liu, J.A.:

1. Ng Wai-kei was convicted of three taxi robberies in the District Court. He was also charged with using an identity card belonging to another person. In the second robbery, he was sentenced to 5 1/2 years. In the other two robberies, he was sentenced to prison for 4 years each. He was given 9 months for using another person's identity card. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently but to run consecutively with the 30-month sentence he was then serving.

2. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence. In his Notice of Application, he pleads that he is the sole bread-winner of the family. His mother needs his attention. He is remorseful and he asks to be released earlier to go back to his family. The applicant is now twenty-five. He committed three robberies in a month, on 5 August 1996, 6 August the next day and on 13 August 1996. In the second robbery, when the taxi-driver resisted, he inflicted a chop wound on the taxi-driver that went as deep as to his bone. The Judge took into consideration his plea of guilty which reflected some remorse. The Judge allowed him an appropriate discount. The Judge took a starting point of 7 years for taxi robbery with a weapon and reduced it, in two of the three robberies, by 2 years. He sentenced the applicant to 4 years' imprisonment.

3. In the robbery in which the taxi-driver was chopped, he was given a heavier sentence of 5 1/2 years. 9 months was given for use of another person's identity card.

4. The starting point, the discount, the sentences passed on the charges faced by the applicants and the totality are, in our opinion, all appropriate. In no way can the sentencing of the Judge be flawed. It was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. We also could find no justification for interfering with the order of the Judge making the sentences to run with the 30-month sentence the applicant was then serving. The applicant has added nothing to what he set out in his Notice of Application. We find his application wholly unmeritorious. We dismiss it and we order a loss of time of 2 months.