PANG SZE TUNG v. THE QUEEN

CACC000452/1972

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 452 OF 1972

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

 

BETWEEN:
	PANG Sze Tung	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Rigby, C.J. McMullin and Leonard, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 15th August, 1972.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Rigby, C.J.:

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to charges of robbery and possession of arms. He pleaded not guilty to a charge of wounding with intent to murder, but by the verdict of the jury he was found guilty upon the lesser offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

2. The brief facts of the case were that the appellant, on his own admission, was concerned with two other persons in an armed bank robbery, the robbery of the Banque Nationale de Paris, whereby he, and those others with him, robbed this bank, he being armed with a revolver at the time, and stole from the bank the sum of $26,100 in Hong Kong currency. It is true to say that the money was recovered. But in the course of that robbery the appellant, whilst being armed, shot at a police constable. Again, it is true to say that the appellant - for what it may be worth - said that the police constable first shot at him, and thereafter there was an exchange of shots. For those offences the appellant was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment on the charge of robbery, six years' imprisonment on the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and three years on the charge of possession of firearms. Such sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It is against those sentences - or the totality of those sentences - that the appellant has thought fit to apply for leave to appeal.

3. It is quite clear that in imposing those sentences the learned judge took into consideration the age of the appellant. He is a young man, aged 29. He also gave consideration to the fact that he has never been in trouble before and that he had been shot in the arm and shoulder as a result of which he will suffer some degree of permanent disability. No doubt, if it had not been for these considerations the sentences imposed would have been substantially heavier. In our view there are no grounds for interfering with the sentences imposed and the application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

 

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Duckett, S.C.C. for Crown/Respondent.

(Judgment delivered by President)