THE QUEEN v. MOK SIN-WAH

BETWEEN

Coram: Yang, Silke & Barker, JJ. A.

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Silke, J A.:

1. The applicant was convicted, on his own plea, of the offence of robbery. He was indicted with another defendant who also pleaded guilty. The applicant was imprisoned for eight years the other defendant for six. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentence.

2. The robbery had taken place on the 15th May 1984 at a jewelry company and in the early hours of the morning. The owner, for some business reason, was about to go into his shop and two men came up - both armed with knives. He tried to push one of the knives away from his neck and received a cut upon his hand.

3. He was tied up, blind-folded and taken into the shop. He was forced to turn off the alarm and to open the safe. The applicant guarded him while the premises was ransacked and both the applicant and his co-defendant had drinks and food in the shop. The arrival of the police surprised them. They attempted to escape through the toilet. The applicant was arrested when he was running from the building. He had stolen property upon him. About a month later the second defendant surrendered himself to the police.

4. The applicant was cooperative with the police from the outset. He disclosed the nickname and telephone number of the second defendant.

5. In passing the sentences he did the trial judge gave a greater discount to the second defendant for his surrender than that given to the applicant for his cooperation.

6. Both attitudes are to be encouraged: the cooperation of an accused caught red-handed in assisting the investiga-ting officers to arrest other persons involved in the same incident and the surrender of those who have got away but decide to face the music.

7. While the sentence of itself is not in any way wrong there is a disparity which could lead to a justifiable sense of grievance. We think that that disparity should be recognised by granting the application, treating the hearing of the application as the hearing of the appeal, allowing the appeal and reducing the sentence of eight years to one of six years.