HKSAR v. LEUNG KAI

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

JUDGMENT

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

Mortimer V-P (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 27th January 1997, the applicant appeared in front of Leong J having pleaded guilty to six offences in the Magistrate's Court. Those offences were; an offence of theft from a jewellery shop in Connaught Road on 29th August 1996 and at the same time, a second offence of possession of an offensive weapon - that was a bread knife stuffed in his belt - in a public place. The third offence was attempting to rob the Nanyang Commercial Bank in Bonham Strand on 9th July 1996. The fourth offence was of robbery of over $13,000.00 from the Dah Sing Bank in Western Market on 22nd April 1996. Fifth, an attempted robbery at the National Commercial Bank in Hennessy Road on 28th May 1996. Finally, the robbery of $10,000.00 from the First Pacific Bank in Gloucester Road on 10th May 1996.

2. He was sentenced for the first offence to two years' imprisonment; the second offence to 12 months' imprisonment; and to 10 years' imprisonment concurrent for the other offences. He asked for two other offences to be taken into account.

The facts

3. Very briefly, the offence of theft was when the applicant went into a jewellery shop and asked to look at some rings. He bolted out of the shop with two diamond rings. Those in the shop ran after him shouting "snatching" and three passers-by outside the shop grabbed the applicant. Eventually the police came and he was arrested. The knife in the second count was found on him.

4. After he had been arrested for those offences it was realised that he resembled the photograph captured on the television of a bank. Consequently the other offences came to light. He was identified in respect of some of them. It only needs to be said that on each of those robbery type offences, he went into banks, produced the knife and threatened people with the knife. On two occasions, he managed to get money before leaving and on other occasions, he fled empty handed.

The sentence

5. The judge, when he came to sentence, considered the offences which were extremely serious. The documents in front of the judge bore the mistaken information that the applicant was a frequent gambler - the applicant tells us - we are prepared to accept it.

6. The reason for committing the offences was that he owed money as a result of a business failure. There was little mitigation apart from his early pleas of guilty and the fact that he had a clear record.

7. The judge took as his starting point 14 years' imprisonment. Undoubtedly, that was, even for these offences, a heavy sentence. The judge said that he would give the applicant a one-third discount from his starting point.

8. The applicant today takes the point that although the judge said he was to have a one-third discount, in fact, he got less than one-third. Exactly one-third discount would result in 9 years and 4 months. The judge rounded the figure up by 8 months. The judge probably did not intend to do that. He simply made an error of calculation. The appropriate sentence in these circumstances - and probably that which the judge intended to pass - was one of 9 years' imprisonment.

9. In those circumstances, we grant the application, treat this application as the hearing of the appeal, allow the appeal and reduce the sentence to 9 years' imprisonment.