R. v. CHEUNG SHING and Others

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No 200
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Liu, J.A.:

1. In the court below, the applicants faced two charges of robbery and a charge of remaining in Hong Kong without authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully in Hong Kong.

2. They were each sentenced to 3 years and 4 months in each charge of the robbery offences. Their sentence for the second robbery charge was ordered to run, for a period of 8 months, consecutively to the sentence of the first robbery charge. Each of the applicants was also sentenced to 10 months for the charge of remaining in Hong Kong without authority, 3 months of which was ordered by the judge to be served consecutively to the sentences for the robbery charges. In effect, each of the applicants was given another 8 months for the 2nd robbery offence. He was given an extra 3 months for the offence of remaining in Hong Kong without authority. The totality of the sentence to be served by each is 4 years and 3 months. The applicants feel aggrieved and they seek leave to appeal against sentence. They had pleaded guilty to the charges at their trial. Each of the applicants submits that the sentence is too severe. They further submit that they were in fact making their way to surrendering themselves to the police.

3. As a matter of fact, the applicants were intercepted at a road block as passengers in a taxi. According to the respective Summary of Facts which was duly interpreted to each of the applicants before their guilty plea, each of them was said to have made an on-the-spot admission to the offences with which they were subsequently charged. There is no mention in the Summary of Facts that they were in fact on the way to surrendering themselves to the police.

4. This is the application of each of the applicants for leave to appeal against sentence. The principal complaint in their identical home-made grounds is that they were on their way to surrendering themselves to the police. The applicants now realise that their counsel did raise this point with the trial judge before they were sentenced. The 4th and the 5th defendants/applicants have nothing further to say in addition to the matters set out in their applications. The 3rd defendant/applicant submits written reasons in which it is stated that they had instructed the taxi driver to take them to a nearby police station before they were intercepted at a road block and that the taxi driver gave a statement to the police to that effect. By reference to the taxi driver's statement to the police, we are told that the taxi driver gave no such information. In the circumstances, what is raised before us by these applicants cannot be said to be sufficiently grounded. And in any case, for the offences to which each of the applicants pleaded guilty, the overall sentence imposed by the judge on each of them is not in any way excessive.

5. We are satisfied that each of the applicants received a just punishment for the offences charged. In the circumstances, the application of each of the applicants must, therefore, be refused. And we refuse it.