THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI WAH AND OTHERS

--------

Silke, V.-P.:

Sentence

1. When this matter was dealt with on 9th August in respect of all three applicants we had also heard submissions from Mr. Forrest in respect of the sentence on the 3rd applicant So Hoi Po. That sentence was one of 12 years for the robbery count and 15 years for the manslaughter count, concurrent.

2. Mr. Forrest has laid emphasis on the age of this applicant who was 18 at the time of the incident and on his good character until then. He has also laid emphasis on the fact of his plea of guilty to the robbery which plea was made after confessional statements had been entered into evidence. He has further emphasised the fact that the applicant desired to plead guilty to manslaughter but that plea was not acceptable. He was convicted of manslaughter after trial.

3. We accept that he was not the instigator. He would appear to have been recruited by the other participants in the offences. But this was a very bad case. The trial judge clearly approached the matter of sentence on the basis of totality. Certainly a robbery of this nature by itself even on a plea could have attracted at least a sentence of 10 years imprisonment. Added to that was the death which took place in the course of that robbery. While 15 years as a total overall sentence for the two may be thought on the high side, it is not one which we think in all the circumstances would warrant our interference.

4. In those circumstances, the application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

5. The proper order that we should make in relation to the application for leave to appeal against sentence on the robbery count from the two applicants who have now been directed to be retried on the murder count is that that appeal should be dismissed.