CHAU FUK CHEUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

CACC000375/1976

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT
	Criminal Appeal
	1976 No. 375

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

 

BETWEEN
	CHAU FUK CHEUNG	Appellants
	LI KAM KEUNG
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

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

Date of Judgment: 26th May 1976.

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

Pickering, J.A.:

1. The two appellants, who are aged 35 and 22 respectively, pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery and were sentenced to four years' imprisonment. They now appeal against their sentences.

2. In the early hours of 26th January last a 46-year-old restaurateur and his wife closed their restaurant and walked home carrying two cloth bags containing $639.40 in coins. As they were ascending the stairs between the first and second floors of No. 4 Tin Wan Street where they lived, three unknown Chinese men descended from the upper floors. One of the men grabbed hold of the restaurateur's neck and the other two each produced a knife and threatened the couple with them. Following this, they snatched the two cloth bags. Both victims struggled and the man was cut on the face and his wife on the finger. The robbers ran down the stairs and were pursued by the victims who raised a hue and cry which attracted the attention of police who apprehended the two appellants. The money and the two knives were recovered.

3. The second appellant has three previous convictions two of which are for robbery with aggravation and in his case the sentence of four years' imprisonment was well deserved so that his application for leave to appeal against that sentence is dismissed. The first appellant, however, at the age of 35 and having been in Hong Kong for many years, has only one previous conviction and that of a very minor nature; some nine years ago he was fined $20 for contravention of a registration regulation. He tells us that he was persuaded into this present offence by the man who has not been apprehended and he gives the impression of genuine remorse. He is far from being a hardened criminal so that, whilst in no way minimising the seriousness of this offence, we consider that four years' imprisonment for what is, for all practical purposes a first offence is somewhat on the high side - the more so since his accomplice, with two previous convictions for aggravated robbery, received only the same sentence. It is ...(illegible) ...(illegible)any consideration of disparity, so much as the fact that he is an apparently genuinely remorseful first offender which causes us to allow the application by setting aside the sentence of four years' imprisonment and substituting therefor a sentence of three years.

 

Representation:

Appellants in person.

Edwards, C.C., for respondent.