HKSAR v. YIM WAI SHING

CACC 581/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 581 OF 1998

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 982 OF 1998)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Stuart-Moore, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 11th November, 1998 the Applicant pleaded guilty before Judge Hawkes in the District Court to a charge of attempted robbery. He was sentenced to 2 1/2 years' imprisonment and he now seeks leave to appeal against this on the ground that it was too lengthy. Here, he has added a number of further grounds.

2. The Judge in passing sentence rightly pointed out that this attempted robbery was committed with a knife and a starting point of 5 years' imprisonment could have been justified.

3. The facts of the case as they were summarised were unpleasant. Putting these shortly, a female member of the staff of a jewellery shop, at about 11:20 a.m. on 18th August 1998, was carrying her employer's money amounting to about $174,000 and was on her way to the bank. As she was going towards an escalator to go up to the bank, the Applicant grabbed her from behind, seizing her neck. He was then noticed to be carrying a fruit knife which was wrapped in newspaper. The staff member bravely fought back and, by the time the Applicant and the victim reached the next level on the escalator, a number of other members of the public were gallant enough to come to her rescue.

4. In the course of what followed, the Applicant was firmly restrained. He tells us today that he suffered a fractured rib and put this forward as a ground of appeal by saying that he has to some extent already suffered a punishment. We feel bound to say that he brought this on himself by attacking a defenceless woman with a knife in the way described. That ground of appeal is worthless.

5. The Judge took a remarkably merciful view of this case giving credit for the positive aspects relating to the Applicant's background which emerged from the probation report and also from the fact that he was previously of good character. The sentence, if anything, was a remarkably lenient one and nothing which the Applicant has referred to us today causes us to interfere with the sentence that was imposed.

6. The application is therefore dismissed. There is no merit to it whatever, and, for this reason, we shall order that 2 months of the time spent in custody awaiting this hearing shall not count towards his sentence.