HKSAR v. JAVAID IQBAL

CACC176/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2003

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 217 OF 2003)

____________________

____________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

1. On 4 April 2003, the Applicant was convicted on his plea in the District Court by H.H. Judge Longley of one count of robbery, one of resisting a police officer in the due execution of his duty and breach of conditions of stay in Hong Kong. That day, he was sentenced to altogether 22 months' imprisonment being 20 months for the robbery and 1 month each for the other charges. All three sentences were to run consecutively. These sentences represented the discounted sentences following the plea of guilty.

2. By a Notice of Application dated 29 April 2003, the Applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentence.

3. The first charge related to a robbery that was committed at about 3.00 am on 16 January 2003 at the lobby of a residential building in Mongkok. The victim was a woman who was returning home that morning. The Applicant, together with another person, accosted the victim and tried to snatch her mobile phone. As the victim resisted, she was punched by the Applicant. She suffered bruises to her right eye.

4. After fleeing the scene, the Applicant was stopped by some police officers in Tai Kok Tsui. The Applicant resisted and struggled with one of the police officers who, as a result, sustained abrasions to both knees when he fell. The Applicant was eventually subdued. This incident with the police officers was the basis for the second charge.

5. The third charge related to the Applicant (a Pakistani national) overstaying in Hong Kong. He had entered Hong Kong as a visitor on 29 November 2002 and was permitted to remain only until 1 December 2002.

6. In sentencing the Applicant, Judge Longley took as starting points for the offences, 2 1/2 years for the robbery, 2 months for the resisting arrest charge and 6 weeks for the overstaying charge. By applying a discount for the guilty plea (in fact using more than one-third for the resisting arrest offence), the learned judge came up with a total of 22 months. As I have said, the sentences for each offence were to run consecutively.

7. I see no error whatsoever in the length of the sentences imposed nor in the imposition of consecutive sentences. On the contrary, I would consider the Applicant quite fortunate that a heavier sentence was not imposed.

8. In the grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Application and in a letter recently sent to the court, the Applicant has basically relied on the fact that he is the family breadwinner, has young children and a sick mother. I sympathise with the Applicant on that front but they do not amount to any justification to reduce the sentences imposed. This morning, he has only asked that his sentences be made concurrent and has repeated his wish to be pardoned.

9. For the above reasons, I dismiss the application.