LEE SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

BETWEEN

----------

Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Yang & Barker, JJ.A.

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P. :

1. The 1st Appellant (who was the 2nd Defendant in the court below) appeals by leave of the judge against a sentence of ten years' imprisonment for robbery. Three men entered a night-club just after midnight and robbed the persons present. The police were warned that the robbery was in progress and, when the robbers became aware of the approach of the police, they endeavoured to escape from the back of the premises through a window. They climbed down from the first floor and were met by two police officers who had been posted at the back of the building. The 1st Defendant, who is not before this court, was seen to be carrying an Object which he pointed at the police, and he was thereupon shot. The 2nd Defendant, who is this Appellant, was also shot, because he did not stop when the police called upon them but came on towards the police and they obviously feared further attack.

2. Counsel properly says that the fact that his client was shot is not a material factor, but all the Defendants were given ten years' imprisonment. The 2nd Defendant pleaded guilty to this offence. He was not carrying the gun. He had no previous record. These factors differentiated him from the 1st Defendant and we think that it was wrong that he should get the same sentence. It may well be that they were all rather fortunate that the sentence was not heavier, but we must recognise that the principal culprit has received only ten years and we think that some allowance Ought to have been made for the plea of guilty. Accordingly we allow this appeal to the extent of reducing it by one year.

1st February 1983