THE QUEEN v. LI YUE KEUNG

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

Hon. Yang, C.J.:

1. The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery and one count of possession of firearm before Deputy Judge Leonard sitting in the High Court.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant arrived at a flat (which was awaiting decoration) together with at least one other confederate to keep an appointment with the victim, whose occupation it was to decorate apartments. When the victim arrived at the premises, he was threatened with a gun, and valuables were taken away from his person. He was then tied up, gagged and blindfolded, and pushed into the kitchen.

3. The applicant readily indicated to his counsel his willingness to plead guilty at the first opportunity, and when it was suggested by his counsel to him that perhaps some sort of negotiation could be made with the Crown with a view to perhaps a charge being dropped, he declined the offer.

4. The judge having taken into consideration the facts of the case, his ready plea of guilty and his clear record, nevertheless came to the view that it was a very serious offence, and he imposed a sentence of nine years on the robbery charge and three years on the charge of possession of firearms, the two sentences were ordered to run consecutively.

5. This morning Mr. Mullick, acting for the applicant, argued that the applicant was in reality being penalized twice for the same act and he suggested that a concurrent sentence in all the circumstances would be more appropriate.

6. With respect, we disagree. There is clear authority to say that in a case such as this, consecutive sentences should be imposed.

7. The second ground of appeal argues that the starting point adopted by the trial judge of some fifteen or sixteen years is too high, and that the judge did not pay sufficient regard to the mitigating factors in this case.

8. A number of authorities were cited, principally by way of comparison of sentences passed in other cases. Having regard to his ready plea of guilty which indicated a sense of remorse, we are of the view that consecutive sentences of nine years and three years in all the circumstances are manifestly excessive, and that an appropriate sentence for the robbery charge would be eight years and that for the firearms charge would be two years, the two sentences to run consecutively.

9. The third ground of appeal complains of certain materials which were disclosed in the Probation Officer's report which were said to be prejudicial and irrelevant. However, it is conceded by Mr. Mullick that the judge probably did not rely on those to any great extent, and no further argument was addressed to us on this point.

10. We therefore allow the application, treat the application as the hearing of the appeal itself, allow the appeal and reduce the sentence to eight years and two years respectively and order these sentences to run consecutively to each other.