R. v. LEUNG YIU KWONG & OTHER

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 561

(Criminal)

___________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Ching JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The two applicants were convicted of a charge of robbery and were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years each. The 1st applicant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction. The 2nd applicant seeks leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence.

2. The case for the prosecution was that on 13th May, 1994 the applicants robbed a woman, assaulting her in the process. That night the victim was going home when two men emerged from cars parked alongside the road. She was pushed to the ground and punched. They took her handbag and fled. She got to her feet, chased them and raised a hue and cry. A man wearing spectacles joined her in the chase. Two other civilians, eventually subdued the applicants and the police were called.

3. One of the policemen was P.C. 4498. Upon arrival at the scene he questioned the 2nd applicant and in reply the 2nd applicant said, "Ah Sir, as I have no money for meal, so I go for snatching." Subsequently at the police station a record was made of this in the constable's notebook which was signed by the 2nd applicant.

4. Another of the policemen was P.C. 52707. When he arrived on the scene he made inquiries from the victim and the two civilians after which he asked the 1st applicant where the handbag was. The 1st applicant answered, "Ah Sir, it was Wong Wai Ki (the 2nd applicant) who snatched the handbag from the woman. He handed it to me and we fled together. However, someone chased us so I threw away the handbag at the rear lane." The 1st applicant then led the police to the handbag when it and its contents were recovered. The statement was subsequently recorded in the policeman's notebook and the 1st applicant signed it.

5. This was not a case depending upon identification. The woman had been robbed and had raised the alarm. The applicants were running and were caught. The facts were for the Court below and not for this Court to decide. Those facts included the voluntariness and the truthfulness of the cautioned statements. A large number of allegedly doubtful facts in minute detail were put before us but in the end the statements referred to were, in the circumstances, more than sufficient for a conviction. The applications for leave to appeal against conviction by both applicants are dismissed.

6. So far as sentence is concerned, the Judge below used a starting point of 4 years. In the circumstances that was not too high. The 2nd applicant in effect says that he has or is going to reform. It is to be hoped that he does but for this offence there were no mitigating circumstances and there was therefore no possibility of any reduction from the starting point which the Judge rightly used. In these circumstances the application of the 2nd applicant for leave to appeal against his sentence is also dismissed.