R. v. WAI KIN PANG

CACC000155/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 155

(Criminal)

___________

 

BETWEEN
	THE QUEEN
	AND
	WAI KIN PANG

___________

 

Coram: Hon. Yang C.J. & Ching J.A.

Date of hearing: 11 August 1995

Date of judgment: 11 August 1995

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Ching JA (delivering the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was found guilty on his own plea on a charge of possession or the carrying of firearms and ammunition with intent to commit an arrestable offence. This is, of course, a very serious offence. Anything to do with firearms must be considered as serious especially if it is intended that they should be used, as in this case, for a robbery. The position is exacerbated by the fact that one of the pistols of 7.62 mm calibre was loaded with seven rounds of ammunition with steel cases which will penetrate a common bullet-proof vest. The other weapon was a pistol of 9 mm calibre and was loaded with three rounds of ammunition.

2. This court would be failing in its duty to the public at large and in particular to the police if these offences were not treated with the utmost gravity.

3. To the applicant's credit, however, is the fact that he has cooperated to a very full degree. He indicated immediately upon his arrest that he had something to say to the police. Eventually, he offered to be a witness and he gave evidence against his co-defendants in court. As a result of his cooperation, the 4th defendant was re-arrested. Some of the defendants changed their plea once his evidence was over. While, therefore, we find that the offence is very very serious indeed we feel that the applicant was entitled to a substantial discount in the very special circumstances of this case.

4. The trial judge adopted a starting point of 15 years for an offence of this type and we think that that was fully justified. The question then is what this particular applicant in these particular circumstances should have been given as a discount on that sentence.

5. We have decided that, perhaps, the reduction to a total of 6½ years did not sufficiently recognise his assistance and we, therefore, reduce his sentence from that 6½ years to a period of 5 years' imprisonment. The application for leave is, therefore, allowed and treating it as the appeal itself we so order.

Representation:

Mr John Reading, S.A.C.P., for Crown/Respondent

Applicant in person