RAYMOND BRUCE BUCKTROUT AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

CACC000864/1974

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 864 OF 1974

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

 

BETWEEN
	RAYMOND BRUCE BUCKTROUT	Appellants
	STEPHEN MICHAEL HARTZENBERG
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Pickering, J.

Date of Judgment: 6th November, 1974.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The two appellants are serving soldiers in the British Army and pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery - the details being that at about 3 a.m. on 1st September of this year they picked up a taxi in the New Territories and instructed the driver to take them to Nathan Road in Kowloon. After the journey had progressed for about 25 minutes one of the appellants told the driver to stop the vehicle, pretending that he was not feeling well. This first appellant got out of the taxi, as also did the taxi driver, the first appellant then seized the taxi driver, a struggle ensued and the taxi driver broke free and ran away. The appellants thereupon drove the taxi away. It was located, undamaged, at about 9.30 a.m. on the same day but a sum of $67 was missing from the taxi and it was that sum which was the subject of the charge, there being no charge in respect of the driving away of the taxi. Each appellant was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.

2. Upon the appeal Captain Risius, for the appellants, whilst acknowledging on their behalf the seriousness of the offence urged that the robbery had been unpremeditated in the sense that it was not the intention of the appellants at the time they boarded the taxi to rob the driver but that the idea had occurred to them-only after the journey had progressed for some 25 minutes; no serious violence had been used; no weapon employed and no injuries sustained by anybody, nor had the taxi been damage. It was not, counsel put it, a serious robbery as robberies go. Both men had been drinking which fact, whilst not an excuse, did offer some measure of explanation, both would be discharged from the Army, both had been co-operative with the Military Police, both had pleaded guilty and both had expressed the intention of making recompense to the taxi driver. The sentence imposed, counsel urged, was heavy by comparison with other sentences collated from the law reports of recent years in respect of robberies of a not very serious nature.

3. There was no representation from the Crown on the matter of sentence. It appeared to me that, serious as the whole episode was, there being no charge in respect of the driving away of the taxi and the appellants having clear records, sentences of 18 months' imprisonment for this particular robbery were somewhat harsh and I allowed the appeal and for those sentences substituted sentences in each case of 12 months' imprisonment.

 

Representation:

Captain G. Risius of Army Legal Service for appellants.

Carolan, C.C., for respondent.