TAM KAM-WAH v. THE QUEEN

_________

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P. :

1. The Appellant appealed originally only against his convictions. He was convicted on tyro counts of murder and, on one count of robbery, he was convicted only of theft, he having pleaded guilty to wounding with intent. Mr. Payne has very properly informed us that he is unable to find any grounds to advance in respect of the convictions. We see nothing wrong with the directions given by the learned judge or with the trial and the appeal against convictions is dismissed.

2. Mr. Payne has, however, drawn our attention to the fact that on the conviction of theft the learned judge imposed a sentence of five years' imprisonment, commenting that the theft was substantial. The position appears to have been that in the first instance the Appellant tools the property in error. He took a case which did not belong to him and which contained the property of the Deceased, but he left behind his own case, and the jury appears to have taken the view that the offences were not a series arising out of au intention to rob but that the theft eras an afterthought: when the Appellant discovered that he had somebody else's property he annexed it to himself. In those circumstances we are inclined to agree that the sentence of five years' imprisonment was excessive. We therefore give leave to appeal out of time against sentence on the fourth count, ere alloy the appeal and substitute a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. This of course will be concurrent with the sentence of seven years' imprisonment.  The matter is really academic only. However, we have put the record straight.

22nd April 1982.