R. v. PAT CHEUK WING

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Mayo J.

1. The Applicant was charged under three separate indictments. The 1st related to a conspiracy to rob in a lift in a building on the Tsing Yi Estate on the 8th October 1993.

2. 2 police officers were performing surveillance duties in the building. They observed 2 men, one of them being the Applicant pressing the lift button to ascend in the lift. On 2 occasions when no one else was in the lift, they did not go in themselves. On a 3rd occasion when there were 2 ladies in the lift they did enter it. The police officers then came forward and arrested the men on suspicion that they were about to commit a lift robbery. The Applicant admitted that this had been his intention.

3. After being charged with the offence of conspiracy to rob he was granted bail by the learned magistrate he appeared before.

4. The 2nd indictment related to other lift robberies and resisting arrest. While he was out on bail on the 6th November he committed another lift robbery this time at the Choi Wan Estate in Kowloon. Together with another youth he seized various gold items of jewelry from a lady who was using the lift. There was also an old lady in the lift with 2 young children.

5. The victim of the robbery put up some resistance and raised the alarm when the lift reached the 18th floor. She tried unsuccessfully to pursue the men.

6. 2 police officers who had received information over their radio telephones observed 2 men crossing Clearwater Bay Road near to Choi Hung Estate. When the men saw the police officers they started to run away. The officers gave chase and sought further assistance over their radios. The Applicant was eventually caught. He put up resistance to his arrest which was the subject matter of one of the charges.

7. The Applicant admitted the lift robbery and gave particulars of 3 other lift robberies which were the subject of other charges.

8. The 3rd indictment arose out of the offences in this way. Duffy J. granted bail to the Applicant and one of the conditions he imposed was that when the Applicant reported weekly to the police he had to produce written evidence that he was in employment.

9. The Applicant's girl friend managed to obtain from the father of another of her friends who was the sole proprietor of a construction company a certificate in blank which certified that the person referred to had been in employment with the construction company for the relevant period referred to. The Applicant had filled in the blanks and tendered the document to falsely represent that he was in employment when this was not the case. This stratagem was resorted to on 4 occasions thus leading to 4 forgery counts and 4 counts of using a false instrument contrary to S. 73 of the Crimes Ordinance.

10. When the Applicant appeared before Her Honour Judge Chua he pleaded guilty to all the charges on the 3 indictments. He originally sought leave to appeal against his convictions on the lift robbery charges. He now wishes to withdraw his appeal against these convictions. He also appeals against sentence on the lift robbery charges.

11. At the trial it was submitted on the Applicant's behalf that he was addicted to dangerous drugs. Judge Chua obtained a report from the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre which confirmed this.

12. She took the view that the offences were too serious to be dealt with by an order that the Applicant should be required to attend at a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre. Also as a consequence of this report the Applicant was not deemed to be suitable for admission to a Training centre.

13. Judge Chua dealt with all the offences globally and so far the lift robberies were concerned passed all the sentences on a concurrent basis. She did however order that the sentence for resisting arrest should be consecutive as should the forgery related offences. She stated in her written reasons that she used 6 1/2 years as a starting point for the lift robberies. She did however give a substantial discount for the guilty pleas. The end result was 5 years imprisonment for all of the lift robberies to run concurrently plus 2 weeks to run consecutively for the resisting arrest and 6 months consecutive for the forgery related offences.

14. Before us the applicant referred to his guilty plea and the cooperation which he had given to the police. He also referred to the fact that he did not hurt anyone. These were all factors which were weighed and considered by Judge Chua. It is no doubt for these reasons that she gave the substantial discount which she did. In our view the sentences were entirely appropriate. There is no reason for us to interfere with them and accordingly this application for leave is dismissed.