YIP PANG AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

CACC000337/1974

  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 337 OF 1974

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

  

BETWEEN
	YIP PANG	Appellants
	LEUNG CHUI PIU
	YIM TAT CHAU
	TSUI TAT CHUEN
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Huggins, J.

Date of Judgment: 27th May 1974.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. These are appeals against sentences imposed in respect of three offences of robbery . The earliest of the three offences was committed by the first and second Appellants and it is submitted with some justification by counsel for the Crown that this was the most serious. These two Appellants ambushed an occupant as he came out of a flat and then entered the premises and threatened all the occupants with knives. They blindfolded the occupants and then ransacked the rooms. Thereafter a woman in the flat was forced at knife point to write a cheque for a large sum of money, which cheque was subsequently cashed. A substantial quantity of personal property was stolen.

2. The second offence was committed by the third and fourth Appellants. They obtained access to premises by pretending that they wished to rent a room. They then produced knives and threatened the caretaker and the other occupants.

3. The last offence was committed by the first, third and fourth Appellants and was a robbery at a clinic. The doctor and the nurse were tied and gagged and a quantity of money and property was stolen. The first Appellant admitted that it was he who planned that robbery.

4. The learned judge imposed sentences of two years' imprisonment in respect of each offence, the sentences on the first, third and fourth Appellants being concurrent. Three of the Appellants have admitted that the sentences which were imposed upon them were either well deserved or even lenient, and I must say that I agree. Substantially heavier sentences might well have been passed for these serious offences and but for one matter I would not have considered interfering: that is the fact that the second Appellant, who committed only one of these offences, has received the same total sentence as the others. The learned magistrate has taken the somewhat unusual course of writing a separate Statement of Findings in respect of each Appellant and it is possibly that fact which has led to his not giving any reason for his not differentiating between them.

5. When I first read the papers I thought there might well be a case here for increasing the sentences on the first, third and fourth Appellants. However, now that I have heard them I am not disposed to increase their sentences but I have heard them I am not disposed to increase their sentences but I do think that there should be some differentiation between the second Appellant and the others. Although I dislike making only minor adjustments in sentences I think that the proper course here is to reduce the sentence of the second Appellant very slightly, and I shall vary his sentence and reduce it to one of twenty months. The appeals of the first, third and fourth Appellants are dismissed.

6. I think the Appellants may all consider themselves very lucky that they did not receive considerably heavier sentences.

 

27th May 1974.

 

Representation: