WONG CHI-WING v. THE QUEEN
HTML content
CACC001219/1977
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL | |
| 1977 No. 1219 | |
| (Criminal) |
| BETWEEN | ||
| WONG Chi-wing | Appellant | |
| and | ||
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
-----------------
Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins and Pickering, J.A.
Date of Judgment: 5th June 1978.
-----------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------
Huggins, J.A. :
1. Counsel has been unable to find any ground upon which he may properly challenge the convictions and this judgment is accordingly concerned only with the matter of sentence.
2. The four charges relate to attacks on two separate couples. On 23rd February 1977 the Appellant approached a young boy and girl in a public park and robbed them of money. He was armed with a knife. He then forced them to a cave where he tied the hands of his victims with their own shoe-laces. It was clearly his intention to rape the girl, but before he could attempt penetration the boy ran out of the cave and managed to find police officers, to whom he made a report. In the meantime the Appellant desisted from assaulting the girl and fled. On the following day there was an almost identical robbery and the victims were tied in the same manner. However, this time the Appellant took no chances: he made the boy lie face downwards on the ground and forced the girl to lie on top of the boy while he (the Appellant) raped her. He was arrested some months later.
3. The learned judge not unnaturally considered these to be serious offences and he rightly considered that they called for heavy sentences. The Appellant had a long record, including six convictions for robbery, four for snatching and one for possession of an offensive weapon, and there was little that could be said in mitigation. In the event the Appellant was sentenced to five years' and six years' imprisonment for the robberies, two years for the indecent assault and nine years for rape - those terms, of course, to run concurrently. Serious as the offence undoubtedly was Mr. Niamatullah submits that nine years' imprisonment for the rape was excessive. We feel constrained to agree. So long a sentence could only be justified where the offence was committed in circumstances of great brutality or where, a real risk of repetition having been established, it was necessary to detain the prisoner for a very long period in order to protect the public. In the present case we think that a sentence of seven years' imprisonment would have been right. We allow the appeal and order accordingly.
5th June 1978.
Representation: