THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI SING

bjbj IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1995, No. 172 (Criminal) -------------------- BETWEEN THE QUEEN and CHAN CHI SING ------------------- Coram: Power Ag CJ & Bokhary JA in Court Date of Hearing: September 8, 1995 Date of Judgment: September 8, 1995 ---------------------- J U D G M E NT ----------------------- Bokhary JA: This applicant faced three counts. The first was of robbery at a watch shop in Carnarvon Road on October 14, 1991. The second count was of possession of an imitation firearm at the time of that robbery. And the third count was of an earlier robbery, being one at a flat in Kilung Street on September 28, 1991. The trial commenced before Mr Justice Saied and a jury on February 16 this year. On the 22nd, the applicant reversed his plea on the third count from not guilty to guilty. And on the following day, he reversed his pleas on the 1st and 2nd counts from not guilty to guilty. Sentence was passed on the 24th. The applicant drew a total of 14 years imprisonment. That total was arrived at by consecutive terms of 6 years and 8 years respectively on the 2nd and 3rd counts and a concurrent term of 10 years on the 1st count. In imposing a total of 14 years imprisonment, the judge had taken into account the fact that the applicant had been sentenced on January 25 this year to three years imprisonment for assault with intent to rob. A number of grounds were urged by the applicant in person in support of his application for leave to appeal against sentence. Those grounds are without substance. He said that he was only a look out. But a look out forms integral part of these groups. He said that the firearm was only an imitation firearm. But even that is serious: for one thing, the brandishing of an imitation firearm can result in security guards and police officers drawing their weapons, and there lies the risk to innocent bystanders. He talks about the break-up of his family since he was sentenced to imprisonment. But that is a regrettable by-product of his own criminality and cannot be relied upon by him. However, there is something that can be said in his favour on the question of sentence. In passing sentence, the judge said this: There is in fact no mitigating circumstance put forward. The fact that the defendant changed his plea to one of guilty in respect of count three on the 22nd of this month and of the other two counts yesterday does not entitle him to any discount for the trial had to continue all along almost to the very end. So the starting point that I mention will be, in my view, the appropriate sentences. It seems to us - and counsel for the Crown concedes it - that the applicant is entitled to some discount for his guilty pleas late as they were. For one thing, a guilty plea removes the question of guilt or innocence from the consideration of the courts whether at trial or on appeal. So it does bring about some certainty and finality. And even a very late plea does save some time even if not as much time as it would have saved had it come earlier. All things considered, we think that the total of 14 years of imprisonment should be reduced by one year to a total of 13 years imprisonment. And the best way to achieve that, we feel, is to reduce the sentence on the 3rd count by one year from 8 years imprisonment to 7 years imprisonment. Treating the application for leave to appeal as the appeal itself, we allow the appeal and reduce the sentence accordingly: as we have said, from 14 years in all to 13 years in all. (N P Power) (K Bokhary) Ag Chief Justice Justice of Appeal Mr Cheung Wai-sun, SACP (of Attorney General s Chambers) for the Crown Chan Chi-sing, Applicant in person - PAGE - & 6" 1994, No. 205 Registrar, Supreme Court Normal Microsoft Word 8.0 judiciary 1994, No. 205 Title _PID_GUID Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8