ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LAW CHUNG YIN

CAAR000011/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Application for Review
No. 11 of 1995

 

BETWEEN
	ATTORNEY GENERAL
	AND
	LAW CHUNG YIN

 

----------

 

Coram: Hon Yang, C.J., Power, V.-P. and Wong, J.

Date of Hearing: 17 January 1996

Date of Judgment: 17 January 1996

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Hon Yang, C.J.:

1. This is the Attorney General's application for a review of sentence. The respondent Law Chung Yin was convicted on his own plea in the District Court of one count of robbery and he was sentenced to detention in a Training Centre. At the time of the offence, he was 18 years of age.

2. On 9 July 1994, a 53 years old man was walking along Sung On Street in Hunghom when he was approached by the respondent who was armed with a chopper. The respondent threatened the man with the chopper and, as the man attempted to escape, the respondent struck him with the chopper thereby causing injuries to his head and arm. The respondent having subdued the victim robbed him of some $200.

3. A passer by witnessed the scene and called the police. The respondent was arrested in the vicinity and later identified by the victim as his assailant.

4. In passing sentence, the trial judge appeared to place undue emphasis on the fact that the respondent was 18 years of age at the time. We have been referred to a number of authorities which show clearly that in a robbery of this kind, youth of itself is not a significant mitigating factor.

5. In the case of Attorney General v. Yau Wing Hong [1995] 3 HKC 95 at page 98, Power VP said:

"Extreme youth in the case of LI Chi-ko - the defendant was just over 15 - is an exceptional circumstances. We are satisfied that a person older than that cannot plead extreme youth."

6. In the case of Chung Man Kit [1990] 1 HKC 87 at page 89A, it was stated:

"Where a series of robberies is concerned, the youth of those who commit them is not a strong mitigating factor."

7. In the leading case of R. v. Mo Kwong Sang [1981] HKLR 610, a number of guidelines were laid down for robbery cases. It is suggested there that the appropriate sentence in an ordinary case of armed robbery where the accused was carrying a knife or other dangerous weapon which he displayed to his victim should normally be five years. If any physical violence, which includes tying up the victim, is used on any of the victims, it is suggested that the sentence of seven years should be considered.

8. In all the circumstances of this case, it being an armed robbery with violence used, we are of the view that a starting point of six years after trial would be appropriate. Credit, of course, should be given to the respondent for his ready plea of guilty and we think a discount of two years would be appropriate.

9. We therefore arrived at the sentence of four years, but having regard to that which was said in the case of Attorney General v. Wong Kwok Wai [1991] 2 HKLR 384. There the courts are urged to take into consideration, in an Application for Review, when a substantially different sentence from that originally passed is to be considered, that some kind of reduction should be given. Having regard to the dictum in Wong Kwok Wai, we would reduce the four years to 3½ years.

10. For the reasons stated above, the Attorney General's application is allowed and we imposed a sentence of 3½ years' imprisonment.

( T L Yang )	( N P Power )	( Michael Wong )
Chief Justice	Vice President	Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr D G Saw of the Attorney General's Chambers for Attorney General

Mr Keith Oderberg (D.L.A) for Respondent