HKSAR v. LI WAI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No.321
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Power, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This applicant with one other defendant faced in all five charges. The two charges to which he pleaded guilty were one charge of robbery and one of remaining in Hong Kong without lawful authority. We need not concern ourselves with the other charges.

2. The admitted facts which were placed before Deputy Judge Lim when he was sentencing were as follows. On the evening of 17th January 1997, Madam Cheung Luk-yan was walking towards her home near the Tai Wo Village. She was confronted by the applicant and another male. The applicant demanded money. She, understandably being afraid, gave him $100. He then snatched her waist bag and took away a further $300 and he also snatched her gold finger ring and gold necklace with jade pendant. When the two men were about to leave, she asked for the return of some money and was given back $100. Both men then fled. Shortly thereafter they were seen by two patrolling police officers but the applicant managed to evade them only to be stopped a little later by two other police officers. He was searched and $300 and a knife were found on his person.

3. The trial judge when sentencing said:

"The robbery was on the lower and of the scale in that no weapon was used and the force used was minimal. Having said that it was still a serious offence in that it was a frightening experience for the victim. I take a starting point of 3 years on the 1st charge and 15 months on the 5th charge.

He gave recognition for the plea by giving him a one-third discount on the first charge. He also took into account clear record and totality. Having done so he sentenced the applicant to two years on the first charge, 15 months on the second charge but ordered that the three months of the second charge be concurrent with the period of imprisonment on the first charge making a total of three years.

4. The applicant suggests today that the sentences were too heavy. He says that it is his first offence of unlawful entry. He urges family considerations saying that he has an aged grand-parent and suggests that he could properly have been dealt with by the judge making the sentences concurrent. We do not agree. The sentences were correct. In fact they might be said to have been a little lenient. There is no ground upon which they could possibly be disturbed.

5. The application is refused and we order that there be two months loss of time.