HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1982

TAM SHU-WING v. THE QUEEN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
6402-EN-1982-10-01

TAM SHU-WING v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000669/1982

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL1982, No. 669
(Criminal)

BETWEEN

TAM Shu-wingAppellant

 

AND

 

The QueenRespondent

_________

Coram: Huggins, V.-P., Silke & Barker, JJ.A.

Date: 1 October 1982

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Barker, J.A.:

1. In this appeal, TAM Shu-wing appeals against his sentence of six years' imprisonment imposed on him on the 12th July 1982 at the Kowloon District Court.

2. The facts of the case were distressingly simple and common. In June of this year, he went into a lift, the accused then prevented the door from closing and pointed a 6-inch knife at the victim and took over $50 from her purse. He then allowed the victim and the boy who was in the lift to leave it, and the boy with commendable presence of mind went downstairs pointed out the accused to the caretaker who followed him until the caretaker saw police officers and the accused was arrested.

3. The accused has a number of previous convictions and this is a matter which has to be borne in mind when one is considering whether or not the sentence of six years which the learned district judge passed upon the accused is the correct one.

4. In the case of MO Kwong-sang(1), the Chief Justice said at page 2:

"We suggest that, in future, the appropriate sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery, where the accused was carrying a knife or other dangerous weapon which he displayed to his victim should normally be five years.

If such a robbery also involves an invasion of private premises (which includes domestic and business premises and the common parts of premises such as lifts and staircases) we suggest that a sentence of six years would be appropriate."

And the Chief Justice added later:

"These guidelines are intended to apply to those who are convicted after a trial. Thus the suggested sentences should be reduced by such amount as the court may think appropriate for a plea guilty."

5. This was a case in which the appellant did plead guilty. It may be said that, he had little alternative, but to do that since he was caught virtually red-handed. Nevertheless, he did save the time and trouble of the court and should be given credit for that. We bear in mind his previous record. Nevertheless, We are of the view that the sentence must be varied. We shall set aside the sentence of six years' imprisonment and substitute, therefore, a sentence of five years' imprisonment. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.

(1)    Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 1981 I

Representation:

Mackay (D.L.A.) assigned for Appellant.

Moorfoot, for Crown/Respondent.