R. v. TSE SAI WAI and Another
HTML content
CACC000528/1996
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
1996, No 528
(Criminal)
_______________
| BETWEEN | ||
| THE QUEEN | ||
| AND | ||
| TSE SAI-WAI MUN YEE | 1st Applicant 2nd Appellant |
_______________
Coram: Bokhary and Liu, JJ.A. in Court
Date of hearing: 11 March 1997
Date of delivery of judgment: 11 March 1997
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
Bokhary, J.A. :
1. These two applicants are men in their early 20's. They came to Hong Kong unlawfully and remained here without authority. Far more seriously, while they were here, they and another man committed two robberies to which they eventually pleaded guilty although belatedly.
2. In sentencing them on September 19, last year, the District Court Judge, Her Honour Judge HC Wong, described the robberies as very serious. We agree with that description. Domestic premises were broken into in the hours of darkness; a woman was threatened with a chopper and her valuables were taken; and then her daughters were similarly threatened and their valuables were taken.
3. The judge sentenced each applicant to 4 years' imprisonment by way of concurrent terms of that duration for each robbery and a concurrent term of 10 months for the remaining.
4. The 1st applicant has referred to the fact that he comes from northeast of China: so that he was unaware that it was illegal to come to Hong Kong; and that it was only when he arrived, he said, that he discovered that he could not obtain lawful employment here. He was forced to commit these offences in order to get something to eat. The 2nd applicant referred to his aged father, and said that he too only wanted something to eat.
5. Now, as to matters such as ignorance of Hong Kong law and family responsibilities, these can sometimes attract leniency for the mere offence of remaining here without authority having landed unlawfully. But in the present case these men committed two robberies. They were very serious robberies. And we regret to have to say that neither of these men faced up to the facts when they talked about merely getting something to eat. In truth, three men - and they were two of them - terrified and threatened three women and took more much more than just food. They took a considerable quantity of jewellery; and they took thousands of dollars in cash. The courts are never without sympathy; but here our sympathy is overwhelmingly for the victims who were subjected to a terrible experience.
6. There is no ground whatsoever for interfering these sentences; and leave to appeal against them is refused.
| (K Bokhary) | (B Liu) |
| Justice of Appeal | Justice of Appeal |
Representation:
Mr AA Bruce QC & Miss Lily Ho (of the Attorney General's Chambers) for the respondent.
Applicants in person