THE QUEEN v. LEE KAM TONG

CACC000149/1986

1986.No.149

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

(Criminal Jurisdiction)

__________

BETWEEN

	THE QUEEN	Respondent
	and
	LEE KAM TONG	Appellant

__________

Coram: Hon. Yang, J.A., Power, & Penlington, J.J.

Date of hearing: 12th June 1986

Date of delivery of judgment: 12th June 1986

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

 

Penlington, J.

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence.

2. The facts of the case are distressingly familiar in that it was a case of a woman being assaulted and robbed in a lift on her way back to her place of employment having withdrawn some money front the bank. The victim struggled and was assaulted with a piece of iron. The applicant then managed to obtain her money, a pass book and other items. He then freed himself from the victim and ran off but was pursued by a Mr Chik Yan Yee and was eventually caught by an off-duty police constable. The money, pass book and other items were found on him.

3. The applicant admitted, as indeed he had little option, that he had assaulted and robbed the victim. The assault resulted in the lady being hospitalized for some 5 days.

4. The applicant had clear record and pleaded guilty to the charge. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years, the Judge having taken account of those two factors in mitigation.

5. The applicant appeals on the ground that he has a family in China who are now without support, he being in Hong Kong and in custody on the facts of this case, we do not think that there is any merit in that ground. We consider that this was if anything, a lenient sentence but, with some hesitation, we have decided not to increase it. The range of sentence for this sort of offence is 5-7 years. This was an armed attack on a woman in a lift purely to obtain money and the applicant's plea of guilty counts for little in the face of the overwhelming evidence.

6. The application for leave to appeal is refused. The sentence will run as from today.

7. The only other thing we would like to add is that the Judge does not appear to have mentioned the conduct of Mr Chik and if this has not been brought to the attention of the Commissioner of Police, perhaps it could be.

Representation:

Applicant in person

G. A. Andree-Wiltens, Counsel for Respondent/Crown Prosecutor