THE QUEEN v. LI PING-CHUEN

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

JUDGMENT

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

Mortimer JA (giving the judgment of the Court): On 16 May 1996 the applicant pleaded guilty before His Honour Judge Jackson to a total of 12 offences. There were 11 offences of lift robbery and one of assault with intent to rob, also in a lift. He was sentenced to 9 years imprisonment, concurrent for each of those offences. He now seeks leave to appeal against those sentences.

The facts

1. The offences were all lift robberies. They were committed between 10 July 1995 and 17 November 1995, the last eight being between 21 October and 17 November. They were committed mostly in the day time or early evening, and in all women were threatened with a paper knife, save for the first offence in which the applicant used a belt to threaten the victim. In three of the offences, women suffered minor injuries when they resisted. In a number of the offences more than one woman was present. Sometimes children were present.

2. The last offence was on 17 November 1995. The applicant was in a lift with a 33-year-old woman, an old man and a child. He produced a paper cutter and told them to take out their money. The woman handed over her handbag. As he left the lift on the 8th floor, she grabbed the strap of the handbag and demanded back papers, which had been taken. Those papers were taken together with a sum in excess of $8,000. The applicant pushed her away and swung the paper cutter and cut her hand. He fled. Although she chased him, she was not able to catch him. Police in the vicinity soon arrested him.

3. When he was caught, he admitted the offence. Soon after, he admitted all the offences with which he was charged. He said he had committed the offences in order to support his drug addiction.

4. He was later picked out on 9 identification parades. The lady in the last offence also identified him.

The sentence

5. The only issue for our determination is whether the sentences of 9 years concurrent were manifestly too high or wrong in principle. Such offences are undoubtedly serious as this Court has said on many previous occasions. The starting point in accordance with the guideline for individual lift robbery of this nature is in the region of 6 years. Having considered the serious nature of the offences, and such mitigation as this applicant was able to advance, the judge determined that he would have passed a sentence of 12 years on each count concurrent after trial.

6. We refer briefly to the matters which he took into account. There was nothing that the applicant could advance in mitigation by way of a previous record. He had a bad record of robbery, theft and burglary together with drug offences. He was at the time 39 years of age and in 1986 he was sentenced to 6 years for a series of robberies. The matters which were advanced in relation to the nature of the offences at trial and also before us can be ignored. The fact that he was only using a small knife and that little injury was caused is little mitigation. However, it can be said that he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. He admitted all the offences which, we are told, led the police to some of the victims before he was picked out on identification parades. So the saving of time and expense of a long trial was fairly substantial. These latter matters he properly advanced before the judge and also before us.

The application

7. Mr Kelly who appears for the applicant submits that the judge's starting point of 12 years sentence, concurrent for all these counts, was too high. Undoubtedly, a starting point substantially in excess of 6 years, which would have been the proper sentence for one count, is justified. But having said that, it seems to this Court, that even taking into account the serious nature of the offences and the considerable series of them, 12 years was manifestly too high. The proper starting point after trial, that is the sentence that would have actually been passed had the applicant fought all these cases, would have been in the region of 10 years.

To what discount is this applicant entitled for his plea of guilty?

8. This is a classic case for the full conventional discount. The applicant admitted the offences immediately he was arrested. He admitted the offences which led the police to some of his victims. He then pleaded guilty at the earliest possible opportunity so that considerable time and expense was saved. In those circumstances, the proper sentence which the judge ought to have passed was one of 7 years imprisonment, concurrent on each of those offences.

9. We grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence. We treat the application as the hearing of the appeal. We allow the appeal and substitute for the sentence of 9 years one of 7 years, concurrent on each count.