HKSAR v. MENG FANMING

CACC128/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 128 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 6 OF 1999)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Stuart-Moore, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 23rd February 1999, the Applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court before Deputy Judge Tong to three offences of robbery on taxi drivers and a fourth charge of possessing an offensive weapon in a public place. In all, the Applicant received a sentence of six years' imprisonment against which he now seeks leave to appeal. Despite his pleas of guilty, he originally sought leave to appeal against conviction but he has abandoned that application and it has been dismissed.

2. The judge was dealing with three robberies committed on taxi drivers during the hours of darkness within a space of about 28 hours of each other. In two of them, a small knife was held at the neck of the drivers to reinforce the demand for money which was made together with a threat to each driver that he would, if he did not pay, be killed. The Applicant was caught almost immediately after the second of these offences and his knife was found where he had thrown it away. The third charge related, in somewhat unorthodox fashion, to the first offence in time. The victim of that offence had also been threatened with death if he did not hand over his money and he felt an object pressed into his back. This victim later identified the Applicant at an identification parade a few days later.

3. The Applicant made several points in his grounds of appeal, in particular that he had been cooperative with the police and with the court in admitting the offences. He said that he is finding the sentence mentally unbearable and he has put before us today a number of humanitarian grounds which he says should support his application for a reduction in sentence. We should say with regard to these latest grounds that, whilst we sympathize with the Applicant over his unfortunate domestic circumstances, we cannot take those into account in matters as grave as these.

4. The trial judge took into account that none of the victims had suffered any physical injury and, applying the guideline tariff to cases such as this, (see: Mo Kwong-sang v The Queen, (1981) HKLR 610), decided that there should be, in this particular case, a five-year starting point for each offence. This was then reduced to three years and four months for each offence of robbery in order to take into account the discount for the pleas of guilty. The judge then considered totality and decided that six years was warranted for all of the offences taken together. In order to achieve this result, he imposed partially consecutive sentences on two of the robberies to bring the total to six years. He imposed six months concurrently for the offensive weapon that was in any event part and parcel of the offences of robbery which had been carried out with a knife.

5. The sentence of six years' imprisonment, in the judgment of this Court, was wholly proper taking into account the grave nature of the offences in the case.

6. There is no merit in the application and it is dismissed. We shall order that three months of the time spent in custody by this Applicant shall not count towards his sentence.