LEE CHUN MING AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN

CACC000080/1975

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 80 OF 1975

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

 

BETWEEN
	(1) LEE CHUN MING	Appellants
	(2) YAU TAM SANG
	(3) LAM SEE YICK
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & McMullin, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 19th May 1975.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Huggins, J.:

1. The present Appellants were indicted along with another man on a total of six counts. We are concerned with only three of those counts. The first and third counts charged both the Appellants with robbery and the fourth count, on which the second Appellant was acquitted, alleged possession of a firearm at the time of the commission of the second robbery. The first Appellant appeals against his convictions on the three counts on which he was convicted and the second Appellant appeals against his sentences on the two counts of robbery.

2. The evidence against the first Appellant included a number of confession statements which, by themselves, were sufficient to support the convictions. He also admitted possession of property which he now admits was stolen, although he says that he was not aware it was stolen at the time that it came into his hands. We see no reason to interfere with any of the convictions.

3. Although the first Appellant did not give notice of an application for leave to appeal against sentence he has sought leave at the hearing and in all the circumstances we have though it right to hear him. In our view the sentences of three years' imprisonment consecutive for each of the robberies and one year's imprisonment consecutive for possession of the automatic pistol would normally have been perfectly proper. However, these sentences were ordered to run consecutively to a previous sentence of five years' imprisonment in another case which was before this Court only a few days ago. In that case the first Appellant appealed against his convictions and that appeal was pending at the time when the learned judge in the present case passed sentence. He alluded to the appeal and said that he would not take the sentences passed in the first case into account although it might be that this Court would wish to do so later. Taking the totality of these sentences into consideration we do think that it would he right for us to interfere. We think that a total of ten years' imprisonment would be appropriate and accordingly we reduce the sentences on Counts 1 and 3 from three years' to two years' imprisonment consecutive.

4. We see no reason to alter the sentences of two and a half years' imprisonment consecutive imposed upon the second Appellant.

 

19th May 1975.

 

Representation: