HKSAR v. LI SZE YUEN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE HIGH COURT

1997, No. 112
(Criminal)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Wong, J. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The Applicant, an illegal immigrant, pleaded guilty before Judge Hawkes in the District Court to one charge of robbery and one charge of remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration, after having unlawfully landed in Hong Kong. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment on the first charge and 15 months imprisonment on the second charge. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. He now seeks leave to appeal against these sentences.

2. The facts were that in the early hours of 22nd November 1996, Mr. POON Shing-key was on his way to work and when he walked near No. 70K Bus Stop at Kau Fuk Estate, Fanling, the Applicant grabbed hold of him from behind and demanded money. The Applicant was speaking in Putonghua. Mr. Poon immediately pushed him away whereupon the Applicant took out a folding knife and pointed at Mr. Poon saying that it was robbery. The knife was about eight inches long when it was unfolded. Being scared, Mr. Poon took out $920.00 from his wallet and the Applicant snatched it from his hand. Mr. Poon was also slapped a few times by the Applicant before he fled. Mr. Poon sustained slight injuries on his left hand when the Applicant snatched the money from him.

3. The Applicant was later intercepted by the police at another bus stop. The folding knife and $920.00 in Hong Kong currency were found on him. He was taken to Sheung Shui Police Station. Under caution, he admitted the offence and also told the police that he had only sneaked into Hong Kong a few hours earlier. In his written grounds of appeal, he pleaded for a chance which he repeated before us and that he hoped to be given the opportunity to study.

4. In passing sentence, the judge bore in mind the decision in MO Kwong-sang. He also called for a background probation report. He had taken into account all relevant mitigating factors. We are satisfied that the sentence imposed on the Applicant is a proper one; it is neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. The application is refused.