CHAN CHIU FAT AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 623 OF 1972

__________________________

BETWEEN

	(1) CHAN Chiu-fat	Appellants
	(2) WONG Kam-sum
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

__________________________

Coram: Pickering, Cons, JJ

Date: 5th January 1973

____________________________________________________

ORAL JUDGMENT REDUCED TO WRITING

____________________________________________________

 

1.  The 2 appellants were originally charged with murder and robbery. They pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder but guilty to manslaughter, a plea which the prosecution and the court were prepared to accept. They also pleaded guilty to the charge of robbery.

2.  The 2 got into a lift, having previously seen a man wearing a wrist watch get into that same lift. Something about their behaviour caused one of the 2 other men in the lift to panic and he hurried out of the lift. In some later confusion he received a stab wound from which he died. That wound was inflicted by the 1^st appellant. The 2^nd man in the lift was robbed of a wrist watch at the same time by these 2 appellants.

3.  The learned commissioner sentenced the 1^st appellant to 8 years’ imprisonment on the charge of robbery and 5 years on the charge of manslaughter. The 2^nd appellant was sentenced to 6 years’ imprisonment on the charge of robbery and 3 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter. In both cases those sentence were concurrent.

4.  We see nothing unusual in the sentences for manslaughter. Indeed, nobody would have raised any eyebrows had those sentences been higher. The matters put forward by the 2 appellants, the first appealing against his sentence for robbery and the second against both his sentences, constitute nothing more than an appeal for sympathy and there is no merit in what they have had to say. As this court has repeated ad infinitum, the time to think about the situation into which relatives are thrown as result of a prison sentence, is before the commission of offences and not after.

5.  The robbery, as opposed to the manslaughter, was however, as Mr. Sharwood for the Crown very properly agrees, a typical robbery. It did not differ in essentials from many scores, hundreds of robberies which come before these courts. The sentence – particularly in respect of the 1^st appellant - was however untypical, and 8 years, even having regard to his record, cannot but be regarded as a very high sentence.

6.  In all the circumstances the appeal will be allowed and the sentence of the 1^st appellant on the charge of robbery will be reduced to one of 5 years. The sentence of the 2^nd appellant – that is, the 6-year sentence in respect of the robbery – will also be reduced to 5 years. There will be no alteration to his concurrent sentence for manslaughter.

Sharwood, C.C. for Respondent

Appellants in person