R. v. CHEUNG SING HEI

CACC000610/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 610
(Criminal)

_______________

BETWEEN
	THE QUEEN	Respondent
	AND
	CHEUNG SING HEI	Applicant

_______________

 

Coram: Hon Power, Ag. C.J., Mayo, J.A. and Stuart-Moore, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 20 March 1997

Date of judgment: 20 March 1997

 

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

 

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

1. The applicant appeals against the sentence of 3 years 8 months' imprisonment imposed upon him for attempted robbery. He pleaded guilty to the offence.

2. It was a taxi robbery in the early hours of the morning of 28 January 1996. The victim a taxi driver picked up a fare in Wong Tai Sin and was instructed to proceed to So Po Kong Government Factory Buildings. On arrival the passenger produced an orange cutter and demanded money. The taxi driver had the presence of mind to inform the passenger that there were other taxi drivers in the vicinity and if he shouted for help he would be caught. He told him that if he left he would not charge him his fare. The passenger did leave.

3. The taxi driver made a report to the police and the applicant was arrested a short time later.

4. Mr Ross for the applicant in his perfected grounds of appeal contends that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive having regard to the four matters he referred to namely that it was only an attempted robbery, that he acted alone and that the offence was committed in daylight in an area that was not isolated.

5. This later ground appears to have been misconceived. In the admitted facts reference is made to the applicant boarding the taxi at 0225 hours in the morning. The final matter raised is that no one was injured.

6. The fact that this was only an attempted robbery does not appear to be of particular significance in this case. A discount was in fact built into the sentence which was imposed.

7. Having regard to the fact that this was a robbery where a weapon was used and that it occurred in the early hours of the morning the judge's starting point of between 5 and 6 years' imprisonment was in no way excessive.

8. This was in accordance with the principles laid down in The Queen v. Tran Van Anh [1993]2 HKCLR at p122.

9. The applicant was given a full discount for his plea and this application is without merit and is dismissed.

(N.P. Power)	(Simon Mayo)	(M. Stuart-Moore)
Ag. Chief Justice	Justice of Appeal	Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr D.G. Saw, SACP for Crown Prosecutor

Mr Phillip Ross (DLA) for Applicant