R. v. CHAN HEUNG MAN AND ANOTHER

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 355

(Criminal)

______________

______________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Mayo JA giving the judgment of the Court:

1. The first applicant A1 who was D3 at the trial below and the second applicant A2 who was D6 seek leave to appeal against the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon them for a series of robberies. A1 pleaded guilty to three robberies and was sentenced to 5½ years' imprisonment and A2 pleaded guilty to four robberies and was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment.

2. The modus operandi of all of these robberies was similar. One of the men would attend at a karaoke bar posing as a customer. He would "buy out" one of the hostesses who would then be taken to a place where she would be confronted by a group of men. She would be robbed of her personal possessions including items of jewellery and cash and would then be required to give particulars of the Personal Identification Number (PIN) operating her bank accounts. If this information was not immediately forthcoming she would be subjected to quite a considerable measure of physical violence or threats of violence. On one of the charges the victim was threatened with a knife. On some of the charges the girls were tied up and on one of them she was gagged.

3. Significant amounts of cash were withdrawn from the accounts after the PIN particulars were obtained.

4. On charge 6 upon which both these men were convicted the victim was indecently assaulted.

5. The trial judge HH Judge Beeson stated in her Reasons for Sentence that she had given the defendants credit for their guilty pleas. She adopted as a starting point 6 years' imprisonment for each offence and sentenced both applicants to 4 years' imprisonment on each count but having regard to the totality principle ordered the sentences to be served partially concurrently so as to achieve an end result of 5½ years for A1 and 6 years for A2.

6. The judge took cognisance of the youth of these men but rightly concluded that the offences were far too serious for a training centre order to be made.

7. Both applicants claim that the sentences imposed upon them were excessive.

8. Before us the main complaint made by both men is that their co-defendants who pleaded not guilty at their trial received more lenient treatment when they were eventually sentenced by another judge.

9. We do not consider this a sufficient reason to justify us in interfering with these sentences. The sentences were in no way wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. These applications must be dismissed.