CHOW WING-FAI v. THE QUEEN

CACC000841/1976

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
	Criminal Appeal
	1976 No.841

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

 

BETWEEN
	CHOW Wing-fai	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Morley-John, J.

Date of Judgment: 24th August 1976

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. The appellant was found guilty of the offence of robbery and was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment and it is against this sentence that he now appeals on the ground that such sentence was too severe.

2. Counsel for the appellant commented on the fact that it was agreed that the appellant who is twenty-one years of age was not the prime mover in this robbery which was committed by him and a seventeen-year-old boy and it was the seventeen-year-old boy who was in fact the prime mover. The learned magistrate ordered that the seventeen-year-old boy be detained in a detention centre which counsel said would mean detention for a period of not less than one month and not more than six months, yet the learned magistrate sentenced the appellant who played the minor part in this robbery to fifteen months' imprisonment, and also that when passing sentence the learned magistrate told the appellant that he had lost the mitigating effect of a plea of guilty and counsel submitted that the learned magistrate had therefore penalized the appellant for pleading not guilty. Although I think that the learned magistrate might have expressed himself better I cannot agree with counsel that the words used by the learned magistrate should be interpreted as penalizing the appellant for pleading not guilty.

3. It is unfortunate that the appellant was just twenty-one years old at the time of this robbery. If he had been a few months younger then detention in a detention centre would have been an ideal punishment for him. The appellant has a good family background, he had a clear record and he was just twenty-one years of age. No weapon was used during this robbery and minimal force, if any, was used, and further it was agreed that the appellant was not the prime mover in this robbery. Under all the circumstances I consider that a more fitting sentence in this case would be one of six months' imprisonment, and I therefore allow this appeal to the extent that the sentence of fifteen months' imprisonment originally imposed be quashed and a sentence of six months' imprisonment be imposed in its stead.

  

  

(M. Morley-John, J.)

  

Representation:

Mr. Micheal Lee, instructed by (K.Y. Woo & Co.) for the appellant.

Mr. B.D. Amey, for the Crown/respondent.