R v. HO KING WAI

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No. 89

(Criminal)

^{_____________________}

^{_____________________}

^{_____________________}

J U D G M E N T

^{_____________________}

Mayo JA giving the judgment of the Court:

1. The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of being in possession of a firearm and ammunition without a licence and one count of conspiracy to rob. He was sentenced to a total of 9 years' imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed upon him.

2. Plainclothes police officers were on duty at the basement of Times Square in Causeway Bay at 12.45pm on 27 June 1996. Two of the officers observed two men acting in what they thought was a suspicious manner. As they approached the men they started to run away. One of the men made good his escape but the other man who it transpired was the applicant was apprehended. He was carrying a bag. They found it to contain the firearm described in the charge. That is a type 54 self-loading pistol of 7.62 x 25mm calibre. They also found 17 rounds of ammunition which could be discharged by this weapon.

3. After questioning by the officers the applicant admitted that he and two other men had planned to rob a jewellery shop on the 3/F of the complex. Dried glue was found on the applicant's hands. The explanation given for this was that the applicant had applied the glue to his hand in an attempt to obviate leaving any fingerprints at the subject premises.

4. The way in which Deputy Judge Beeson dealt with this matter was to adopt 12 years' imprisonment as a starting point for both these offences. She gave the usual 1/3 discount for the plea and a further discount of 1 year for the assistance the applicant rendered to the police. She then ordered that 2 years of the sentence passed on the 2nd count should be made consecutive to the sentence imposed on the 1st count thus leaving a total of 9 years' imprisonment. It should be added that the judge carefully reviewed the sentences imposed in a number of pertinent cases.

5. The judge was unable to give any discount for the applicant's good character as he had a previous conviction for robbery.

6. In his grounds of appeal the applicant does little more than protest that the sentences which were imposed were excessive in all the circumstances.

7. Before us he did not add anything of any significance. The sentences were neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. This application is accordingly refused.