TAM LIN v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC000476/1971
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 476 OF 1971
-----------------
| BETWEEN | ||
| TAM LIN | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Pickering, J.
Date of Judgment: 5th August, 1971.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
1. The appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery and was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. He now appeals against that sentence.
2. In his Statement of Findings the learned magistrate said:
" Appellant is not likely to benefit from any reformative or remedial measures and I therefore had to consider the proper term of imprisonment. This was really an aggravated case of "snatching" albeit robbery in law. I took into account that appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge, but there was nothing else to be considered by way of mitigation. In view of the fact that the usual sentence for "snatching", where a prison sentence is appropriate, is 12-18 months I took the view that this offence merited a sentence at the top of that scale and made an order accordingly."
With the greatest respect to the learned magistrate it seems to me that he lulled himself into believing that he was taking into account the appellant's plea of guilty, whereas, in fact, he did nothing of the sort. Had any credit at all been given to the appellant for his plea of guilty he could not have received a sentence at what the magistrate regarded as "the top of the scale". It is, I think, very desirable and even important that a plea of guilty should find reflection in some measure of reduction of what would otherwise have been the sentence. If pleas of guilty consistently fail to make any impact upon the sentence, there will be no incentive for accused persons to save public time and money by entering such pleas. They might just as well "have a go" if they feel that whatever their plea they are likely to receive a sentence at the upper reach of the scale in current use for their particular offence.
3. Since in this case the sentence clearly did not reflect the plea of guilty the appeal is allowed and the sentence reduced from 18 months imprisonment to 14 months.
Representation:
Appellant in person
Niamatullah C.C. for Crown