Case Detail

THE QUEEN v. SHUI KOK WA AND OTHERS

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

Files (2)

39043-EN-1986-05-30

THE QUEEN v. SHUI KOK WA AND OTHERS

HTML content

CACC000064A/1986

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1986, No. 64

(Criminal)

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

and

SHUI KOK WA (D1)

LO CHI KEUNG (D2)

MAN LAI SING (D3)

------

Coram: Li, V.-P., Yang, J.A. & Penlington, J.

Date of hearing: 30th May, 1986.

Date of delivery of judgment: 30th May, 1986.

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Yang, J.A.:

1. We have already dealt with the applications made on behalf of the 1st and the 3rd Applicants. At the last hearing we thought it appropriate to call for a Training centre report for the 2nd Applicant in view of his age. He was only 19½ when the offence was committed.

2. Both the probation report called for by the trial judge and the Training Centre report which was placed before us speak favourably of the Applicant. However the fact remains that the offence committed was a grave one. According to the agreed facts, when the three Applicants were inspecting the mink skins in the shop, knives were produced from the plastic bags which the three men had brought with them.

3. The trial judge in assessing the appropriate sentence for the 2nd Applicant took into consideration his plea of guilty, his age and also the Probation Officer's report, and he came to the view that a sentence of 6 years was appropriate. In the light of our decision on the 1st and the 3rd Applicants, we would think, all things being equal, a sentence in the region of 4 years would have been correct. Having said this, we must however place great emphasis on two matters raised in the Training Centre report. The first is the close support the Applicant still receives from his family, and his genuine concern for his family. The second is that he is trained as a decoration worker and it is his ambition to make a success of this career. We also have regard to the fact that this robbery, albeit serious, was not in domestic premises and was carried out during the day. With these two elements in mind, we are prepared to exercise clemency in this particular case and order that the Applicant be sent to a Training Centre.

4. The application is treated as an appeal proper, the appeal is allowed. We quash the sentence of 6 years originally imposed upon him and we order that the Applicant be sent to a Training centre.

T.L. Yang

Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr. O'Reilly Mayne, Q.C. & Mr. Souyave (Roger S.K. Wong & Co.) for D2

Mr. Duckett, Q.C. & Mr. A. Chan for D.P.P./Respondent

CACC000064/1986

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1986, No. 64

(Criminal)

BETWEEN

	THE QUEEN
	and
	SHUI KOK WA	(D1)
	LO CHI KEUNG	(D2)
	MAN LAI SING	(D3)

--------

Coram: Li, V. -P., Yang, J. A. & Penlington, J.

Date of hearing: 15th May, 1986.

Date of delivery of judgment: 15th May, 1986.

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

Yang, J. A.:

1. Both the 1st and the 3rd Applicants pleaded guilty to robbery. Each was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment. This is their application to appeal against sentence.

2. The facts of the case are as follows: On the 17th August 1985, the three Applicants, and one other co-accused, together with people unknown, robbed a fur trading company of some 7,293 pieces of mink skin of considerable value. A group of 3 men including the two Appilicants acting as customers, resorted to a ruse to gain entry into the company: At an opportune moment the 3 men produced knives from the bags they were carrying and threatened the employees. They tied up the employees' hands with wire and covered their mouths with adhesive tapes. After obtaining what they wanted they escaped. On the way out of the company the 2nd Applicant was seen by policeman pushing a trolley loaded with cardboard boxes containing the mink skins.

3. The 1st Applicant submits that he was a prosecution witness at the trial and testified against the 4th accused. Mr. Duckett fairly concedes that the 1st Applicant gave evidence to the best of his ability but the 4th accused was eventually acquitted. The 3rd Applicant also submits that he was a prosecution witness, but his evidence was contradictory to the statement he had earlier given to the Crown. The result was that the Crown was quite unable to rely on his evidence in Court.

4. It cannot be denied that the offence committed was well planned. We are of the view that if the 1st and 3rd Applicants had been convicted after trial, the appropriate sentence would have been one of 8 years. Their early pleas of guilty were considered by the trial judge but we do not think that sufficient credit was given to those pleas. We also take into account the fact that the premises was not domestic and the robbery took place during daytime.

5. In all the circumstances, we are of the view that a reduction of the sentences from 7 to 5 years is appropriate. We treat the application as the appeal, allow the appeal and reduce the sentences on the 1st and 3rd Applicants to 5 years.

T. L. Yang

Justice of Appeal

Representation:

D. O'Reilly Mayne, Q. C. & Souyave (Roger S. K. Wong & Co.) for D2

Shui Kok Wa and Man Lai Sing, D1 and D3 in person

A. P. Duckett, Q. C. and A. Chan, Crown Counsel for Respondent