WU YAT CHEUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

CACC001107/1975

  

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
on appeal from the District Court

	1975 No. 1107
	(Criminal)

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

  

BETWEEN
	WU YAT CHEUNG	Appellants
	KWOK MUK KAN
	and
	THE QUEEN

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

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 15th March 1976

  

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

JUDGMENT

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

  

Huggins, J.A.:

1. These appeals against sentence arise in a case where the principal offence by each of the two Appellants was the robbery of a taxi driver. Having taken the driver's money the Appellants ejected him from the vehicle and the first Appellant proceeded to drive the taxi away, the second Appellant being still on board. The robbery had been witnessed by the police, who were in ambush, and they gave chase. The first Appellant, who had no licence to drive and who was as a result driving an uninsured vehicle, drove in a highly dangerous manner to evade arrest and finally, after colliding with another taxi, rammed a road sign. Both Appellants were sentenced to 2 ½ years' imprisonment for the robbery. In addition the first Appellant was sentenced to one year's imprisonment for taking the vehicle without authority, six months for dangerous driving, one month for driving without a licence and three months for driving when uninsured, while the second Appellant was sentenced to one year's imprisonment for allowing himself to be carried in a vehicle taken without authority. All the sentences were consecutive. The first Appellant was further disqualified from holding a driving licence for two years.

2. We see no reason to interfere with the sentences imposed for the robbery, which were richly deserved. However, we regard the other offences as having arisen out of a foolish attempt to evade arrest and as not deserving sentences higher than would normally be imposed for similar offences unconnected with a robbery. Moreover, we think the totality of the sentences imposed in each instance was unnecessarily high. Neither Appellant had any relevant previous conviction and we think justice will be done if we substitute three months' imprisonment for taking the vehicle without authority and three months' imprisonment for taking the vehicle without authority and three months' for the dangerous driving, those terms to be consecutive. The sentences on the first Appellant for driving without a licence and without third party insurance will stand, but we order that they run concurrently with the sentences for taking the vehicle and for dangerous driving, and with each other. As Miss Kam pointed out, the disqualification ordered by the District Judge would be ineffective because it would expire before the terms of imprisonment expire. We therefore substitute disqualification for four years, which means that the first Appellant will not be allowed to drive for twelve months after his terms of imprisonment come to an end. As to the second Appellant, we substitute a sentence of one month's imprisonment consecutive on the charge of allowing himself to be carried in a vehicle taken without authority.

  

15th March 1976

  

Representation: