THE QUEEN v. SIU WAI MING

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1987, No. 240
(Criminal)

BETWEEN

	THE QUEEN	Respondent
	and
	SIU WAI MING	Appellant

________________

 

Coram: Hon. Silke, V.P., Hon. Liu and Hon. Jones, J.J.

Date of hearing: 25th August 1987

Date of delivery of judgment: 25th August 1987

 

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

 

Jones, J.:

1. Siu Wai Ming seeks leave to appeal against his sentence of four years' imprisonment by Judge Rattigan at the Shatin District Court on the 28th April 1987 for an offence of attempted robber to which he entered a plea of guilty.

2. This was an attempted robbery of a taxi driver at about 11.30 p.m. on the 7th October 1986 with another person named Yu Lap-ping. The evidence revealed that the applicant and the other man were picked up as passengers at Temple Street, Kowloon and were taken to Lower Shing Mun River. Here the driver was ordered to stop when the applicant and his colleague announced that it was a robbery and threatened him with a knife. The taxi driver offered his money and asked them not to harm him. The applicant and his colleague then asked the taxi driver to drive on and later the driver had the good fortune to meet a police vehicle and he reported the incident. The police then arrested the applicant and his colleague inside the taxi. They also seized a kitchen knife which was found in the taxi.

3. The applicant was aged twenty at the time of the offence having been born in September 1966. He has two previous convictions for minor offences. Before he was sentenced, the judge called for a probation officer’s report and also a report from the Commissioner of Correctional Services as to his suitability for detention in a detention centre or in a training centre. The probation officer’s report indicates that the applicant is lazy, lacks self-discipline and has associated with undesirable company whilst the report from the Commissioner of Correctional Service also confirmed these facts and recommended a period of disciplinary training either in a detention centre or in a training centre.

4. The judge in his reasons for sentence took those reports into consideration together with the plea of guilty. He imposed the preset sentence having regard to the guidelines set out in R. v. Lee Chi Cheong[1] where the Chief Justice in delivering the judgment of the court said:

“We would like to reiterate that robberies of taxi drivers are offences of a very serious nature calling for a sentence of five to six years imprisonment save in exceptional circumstances.”

5. Mr. Bruce who appeared for the Attorney-General referred us to two other cases A.G. v. Tai Ming-keung[2] and R. v. Fu Yuet-ping[3] which confirmed that the normal sentence for a taxi robbery is in the region of four or five years imprisonment.

6. The applicant has, in his grounds for appeal, sought a reduction of the sentence on the grounds of his remorse. We also have before us a letter from his mother which we have taken into consideration. However, we do not consider that a sentence for attempted robbery should be distinguished from an actual robbery particularly where, as in this case, a weapon was used. There are no exceptional circumstances to justify a reduction in the sentence that was imposed. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

 

 

Appellant in person

Mr. A.A. Bruce, Senior Crown Counsel for respondent.

---

[1]  Review No. 2 of 1984

[2]  Review No. 14 of 1981

[3]  Criminal App. 415 of 1985