THE QUEEN v PANG YUN SUM

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994,No.358
(Criminal)

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Mortimer JA (giving the judgment of the Court): This applicant appears in person and applies for leave to appeal against his conviction and his sentence.

1. His case was adjourned on 25th May 1995 when this Court considered applications by others who were charged with him. The judgment we gave on 29th May 1995 deals with this particular case in considerable detail.

2. In his written application for leave, this applicant says that there was insufficient evidence.

3. He was convicted with others on 7th July 1994 after a lengthy trial before Deputy Judge Barrow and a jury of three offences; conspiracy to rob; carrying firearms and ammunition with intent to commit an arrestable offence; and of assisting unauthorised entrants to remain in Hong Kong. For those offences he was sentenced to 16 years for the conspiracy to rob, 16 years for the firearms offence, 2 years of which were to run consecutively, and 4 years on the third count to run concurrently, making 18 years in all.

The facts

4. Briefly, these offences were of a most serious nature. An elaborate plan was made to rob factory of electrical goods thought to be worth about $6m. The watchmen were to be tied up; the factory broken open; the goods were to be removed into lorries and taken to a waiting buyer. A gun and a grenade were to be used if necessary. To effect this plan, five Mainland youths were recruited by this applicant and one other. The Mainland youths were to bring with them arms to effect the robbery. After the robbery, they were to be taken by car to a waiting fishing vessel to return them to the Mainland Elaborate preparations were made. The factory was visited and observed. The place where the goods were to be disposed of was also visited. Those taking part were promised large sums of money. This applicant said in one of his confession statements that he was to be offered $300,000 for his part. In fact, this applicant having taken part in recruiting the Mainland youths, arranged for them to be smuggled into Hong Kong on 18th June 1993. He had booked a room in the East Motel where they were to meet and hide. He was the one who received the gun and grenade from one of the Mainlanders. According to the evidence, he cleaned the gun and hid them both in the ceiling.

5. On 19th June, the police who were observing some of this activity, pounced and arrested most of those involved, including this applicant.

6. The evidence at trial consisted chiefly of a co-conspirator, Leung Wai-sang who was one of those recruited from the Mainland and confession statements, which although challenged by this applicant, were admitted by the judge. This applicant also gave evidence on his own behalf which was rejected by the jury.

The application on conviction

7. So far as the application for leave to appeal against conviction is concerned, at the previous hearing, we considered with considerable care the evidence in the case and the summing-up which was impeccable and completely far to this applicant. There are no grounds upon which this Court could allow this application on conviction. The application is refused.

The application on sentence

8. In sentencing, the judge who was in the best position to determine the various responsibilities and culpabilities of the defendants came to the conclusion that of all the defendants before the court this applicant's involvement in these very serious offences was as great as any other. We reviewed the sentences in relation to other applicants at the last hearing. We do not propose to repeat what we said there.

9. It suffices to say that this conspiracy was a most serious offence and the judge's starting point of 16 years was amply justified on the facts. The judge considered the culpability of this applicant, and sentenced him on that offence to 16 years. He sentenced him to 2 years consecutive for the firearms offence. Having regard to this applicant's involvement with the gun and the grenade that was also amply justified.

10. The only question which could have been raised here is whether the totality was justified. There can be no doubt, having regard to the facts and the background of this applicant, that it was justified. This sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor was it wrong in principle. This application is refused.