R. v. IEONG WENG FU

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 637

(Criminal)

____________________

____________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Bokhary JA:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence totalling eight years' imprisonment passed on the applicant, a man in his early 30's, by Deputy Judge Wilson in the High Court on October 18 last year in respect of three counts of robbery to which he had pleaded guilty in the Magistrate's Court which committed him to the High Court for sentence.

2. That sentence was composed of three concurrent terms: of eight years each on the 1st and 2nd counts and of five years on the 3rd count.

3. Two grounds of appeal have been lodged. The first is that the 11-year starting point selected by the judge is too high. And the second is that the three-year discount allowed by him is too low.

4. As to the nature of the robberies, it is sufficient to quote two passages from the transcript of what the judge said when passing sentence. This is what the judge said as to how the robberies were carried out:

"On all three occasions he entered a bank and handed the teller a threatening note announcing robbery and thereby obtained three large sums of cash. The first note to a teller said that he had a bomb and a gun, and in the second case that note referred to a gun. In the third case the note did not refer to any weapon but simply announced robbery. He did not produce any weapon on any occasion and there is no evidence that, in fact, he ever had done."

5. As to the proceeds of the robberies, this is what the judge said:

"In the three robberies the defendant fled with a total of $89,770 in cash, that's to say just under $90,000, and there is no suggestion or realistic prospect of any repayment at all."

6. On the basis of the background report he had on the applicant, this is what the judge said:

"This shows that he is 32 years of age. He has two previous convictions and that includes one for robbery in 1982. Of course, that is a long time ago and he must have been only a youth at that time. Then he led a trouble free life for some 14 years. He married and now has two young children aged seven and three and has been a responsible husband, father and worker during that time. Sadly, however, he has a gambling habit and has become indebted as a result."

7. As to the mitigation and what was to be noted on the other hand, the judge said this:

"In mitigation it is pointed out that he has pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, and he has kept out of trouble for a long time and that, in fact, he had no weapon and his notes were only a bluff. It is correct that there is no evidence he actually had any weapon with him and I must accept this. However, it has to be said that this sort of offence frightens bank tellers and others in the bank who have no way of knowing. Security guards or passers-by can take the situation seriously an unintended violence can even follow."

8. Finally, the judge sentenced the applicant thus, saying this:

"These three offences were committed within a few weeks of each other. In no sense were they, of course, one event but they were a connected series of -- in one transaction I suppose. I'm going to look for the appropriate sentence at the series of events rather than each individual one. I take a starting point for the total series of events of 11 years. I give a discount for the pleas of guilty and impose on counts one and two eight years' imprisonment on each, concurrent. On count three, five years' imprisonment, concurrent, so that the overall total sentence is, in fact, eight years' imprisonment."

9. There is an argument as to the starting point. It is perhaps on the high side. Also, there is little warrant for regarding this man as unworthy of a full guilty plea discount especially as he had pleaded guilty in the Magistrate's Court, so that well before the time he got to the High Court, it was well known that he would plead guilty with the result that the work that had to go into his trial and the blocking-off of the trial court's diary for his trial was avoided.

10. Looking at the matter in the round, we think that the sentence which this man received was in the result too high and should be reduced by one year.

11. Treating the hearing of this application as that of the appeal itself, we allow the appeal and reduce the sentence by one year from eight years to seven years.