R. v. MA KIT and Another

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 615
(Criminal)

_______________

^{_____________________}

^{_____________________}

J U D G M E N T

^{_____________________}

Mortimer JA (giving the judgment of the Court): On 23 October 1996 the two applicants, Ma (D1) and Wong (D2), each pleaded guilty to a joint offence of robbery and each to an offence of being illegally in Hong Kong before His Honour Judge Hawkes in the District Court. Each applicant was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for the robbery and 12 months imprisonment concurrent for the offence of being illegally in Hong Kong. Each applies for leave to appeal against sentence.

The facts

2. On 12 August 1996 a lady was waiting at a bus-stop. Wong, it is said, grabbed her neck and pointed a 6 or 7" long knife towards her and demanded her valuables. Ma snatched her bag and her finger ring. Both fled but the matter was reported to the police and they were each arrested later in the day. However, the property was recovered but not the ring and a $100 note. The applicants admitted their offences. They said they had respectively come to Hong Kong on 10 and 11 August. They had committed the offence because they were hungry, short of food and had no money to buy any.

3. Before this Court they each ask for a reduction in sentence on the basis that they come from poor backgrounds in China. They came to Hong Kong to find work rather than to rob. But when they became hungry and were starving they saw no other way out of their difficulties. Each has families in China who need their assistance.

4. It is clear from the judge's reasons for sentence that those matters were advanced before the judge. Having referred to those matters, the judge said this:

"... it is difficult not to feel some sympathy for the accused. On the other hand, robbery offences committed by illegal immigrants are all too prevalent and accordingly a serious view has to be taken of them."

The judge took 6 years as the total starting point for sentence and reduced that sentences in each case to 4 years on the grounds of the mitigation advanced and the pleas of guilty.

4. We would emphasise the same sentiment that the judge advanced about the prevalence of this type of offence by illegal immigrants. It is necessary for judges to take a serious view of them. The sentence passed was quite justified for the sentences which had been committed. These applications are refused.