R. v. WONG WING HONG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 526
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Nazareth, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court) :

1. On 4th July 1995, on his own pleas of guilty, the applicant, Wong Wing-hong, was sentenced to a total period of 6 years' imprisonment on 11 charges. It is not necessary to go into all the circumstances which are unusual.

2. They began with him holding up a taxi-driver and taking his money and the keys of the taxi and making off with them. The taxi-driver reported almost immediately. Within a matter of less than 2 hours the applicant was arrested, trying to change the deflated tyre of the taxi. He had in his possession a notebook which revealed some of the other offences charged and also he made a cautioned statement admitting yet other offences. All this led to his being subjected to the following charges. The 1st charge was robbery. This related to cash of $1,794 odd, a watch and the ignition key he took off the taxi-driver. In respect of that, he was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment.

3. The 2nd charge was taking a conveyance without authority and related to him as taking the taxi. For that he was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment concurrent.

4. The 3rd charge was theft. This related to a wallet found in his possession by the police when he was apprehended. It contained the identity card of the victim, cash vouchers, a bank ETC card and a medical card. In respect of that he was sentenced to 3 months consecutive to the imprisonment on the 1st charge.

5. The 4th charge was one of impersonating a police officer. This he admitted and there were also particulars in his notebook. In respect of this charge, he was sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment, also consecutive.

6. The 5th charge was robbing the person to whom he pretended to be a police officer, of $270 in currency and 15 plastic straws of suspected dangerous drugs. For that, he received 4 months' imprisonment consecutive.

7. The 6th charge was possession of a dangerous drug contrary to s.8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. This related to 0.15 gramme of a mixture containing 0.02 gramme of heroin hydrochloride. This was found on his person upon arrest. For that he was sentenced to 1 month's imprisonment concurrent.

8. The 7th charge was also possession of a dangerous drug, contrary to s.8(1)(a) and (2) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. It consisted of 11 tablets containing 198 milligrammes of midazolam maleate found in his room on 22nd April 1995. For that he received 1 month's imprisonment concurrent.

9. The 8th charge was driving a motor vehicle without a valid licence. This related to his driving the taxi he had stolen. In respect of that he received 1 month's sentence concurrent.

10. The 9th charge was driving the stolen taxi without third party insurance. For that he also received 1 month's imprisonment concurrent and was disqualified.

11. The 10th charge was impersonating a police officer on an occasion different from that on the earlier charge. For that he received 1 month's imprisonment consecutive.

12. Finally, the 11th charge was theft contrary to s.9 of the Theft Ordinance in respect of which he received 1 month's concurrent imprisonment. It related to stealing $500 in cash, one ball-pen and some tablets from the person to whom he pretended he was a police officer.

13. In his reasons the judge explained the basis of his sentence:

"Armed robbery of a taxi driver at night time is a serious offence which usually warrants a sentence of 5 to six years imprisonment. See Reg. v. Lee Chi-cheong Review Application No. 2 of 1984. C.A."

The incident in which the applicant took possession of the taxi occurred in the early hours of the morning. Returning to what the judge said:

"The next most serious set of offences relate to impersonating a police officer and thereby stealing from persons being questioned in the street (4th and 5th charges, 10th and 11th charges). In particular, its to be noted that the Defendant pointed a pistol like object at the victim of the 5th charge thereby elevating that charge to one of 'Robbery'.

Its now apparent that the Defendant was on bail for similar offences in North Kowloon, South Kowloon and Shatin Magistracies when he committed these offences.

I have read the very full mitigation advanced on the Defendant's behalf by Mr Ravenscroft. He asks me to bear in mind the totality principle in connection not only with the offences before me today but also with those offences for which the Defendant is now serving time from the Magistrates Courts.

Whilst I will do this in relation to today's offences I will make the sentences consecutive to the Magistracy ones in view of the fact that he committed these whilst on bail for those."

14. What the applicant urges in his written application is that the judge did not give consideration to his admission of guilt in the police station and at his trial in order to save the time of the court. It is true there is no express mention of this but the full submission by his counsel in mitigation which the judge did mention must have dealt with that matter. The judge could not have overlooked it. As to the other point, that the judge handed down a concurrent sentence of 13 months before the present sentences, again, the judge did not overlook this aspect. On the face of the matter, he was clearly right in making the sentences he was imposing, consecutive. They had taken place while the applicant was on bail in relation to the earlier offences in respect of which he received a sentence of 13 months, so that it was clearly right to make the sentences consecutive.

15. As can be seen from his reference to the total of 6 years, the judge in the end dealt with the sentences on their totality. Looking at the matter in the round, there were serious offences involved here. The sentence of 5 years imposed in respect of the 1st charge, the robbery of the taxi driver, constituted 5/6th of the totality of the sentence. Clearly, it can be seen to be high, particularly in the context of the plea of guilty. All the other charges, including one of robbery, account for only 1 year, and they seem to be lenient. But, however those matters may be, there is nothing wrong in their totality of 6 years. Viewed in that way, the sentences can be seen to be correct. There is no merit in the applicant's grounds. We refuse his application for leave to appeal.