R. v. CHAN KAM CHUEN

CACC000131/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 131
(Criminal)

	THE QUEEN
	AND
	CHAN KAM CHUEN

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

Coram: Power, V.-P., Mortimer and Mayo, JJ.A.

Date of delivery of judgment: 12 June 1996

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Mortimer, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court) :

1. On 15 February 1996 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery before His Honour Judge Pang in the District Court and was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. He now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

The facts

2. On 31 July 1995 in the morning, the applicant was in a bank and saw Wang Tah-kueng - who was with a colleague - withdraw a large sum of money which was placed in a manila envelope. This belonged to that lady's employer and was for wages at a factory on the Mainland. The applicant followed the lady and her colleague to a building in Kwun Tong, into the lift and up to the 12th floor. When she left the lift, he followed her and knocked her to the ground in order to take the manila envelope. He then fled down the staircase, followed by the lady who gave chase. Her colleague called the police. By the time the applicant had reached the street, a driver in a nearby vehicle heard the commotion and intercepted the applicant. During the ensuing struggle, the police arrived and he was arrested. The manila envelope together with its contents of $300,000 were recovered. The applicant admitted the offence at once and said that he lost money in Macau. That was the reason for the offence.

The sentence

3. In sentencing, the judge took as his starting point 5 years imprisonment and reduced it for the plea to 4 years.

4. Mr Ross, who appears for him on this application, submits that the starting point was too high and more appropriate as a starting point for an armed robbery of the less serious kind, following the guidelines in Mo Kwong-sang. With this, we agree. The starting point should have been less than 5 years.

5. Also, the judge failed to give the applicant the usual discount for a plea of guilty. No doubt on the basis that he was caught red handed. But the discount is usually given because of the time and money that is saved by a plea of guilty as well as the remorse shown by it.

6. We are persuaded that in the circumstances we should interfere with this sentence as it is wrong in principle. Having taken those matters into account we reduce it to one of 31/2 years imprisonment.

(N.P. Power)	(Barry Mortimer)	(Simon Mayo)
Vice President	Justice of Appeal	Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr Philip Ross (DLA) for Applicant

Mr F. Veltro (Crown Prosecutor) for Crown/Respondent