Hon Yeung JA (giving the reasons for judgment of the Court):
上訴法庭法官楊振權頒發上訴法庭判案理由書：

Introduction
引言

There had been a number of burglaries and house robberies in the Shatin and Sai Kung areas from January 2004 to May 2008.  A number of culprits entered various private domestic premises in the early hours of the morning to steal or to rob.
2004年1月至2008年5月期間，新界沙田及西貢地區發生多宗入屋犯法及入屋搶劫罪。多名賊人在凌晨時份，進入多個私人居所盜取或搶劫財物。

On 6 May 2008, four illegal immigrants, including the two applicants Wong Cheung and Chau Kei, and Tang Kwan and Wong Tak-chun were intercepted and arrested by police officers in Shatin.  The police officers found that they were in possession of a large quantity of valuable property obtained from a burglary case.  Wong Cheung admitted to the police officer that he had committed a number of robberies and burglaries with the other people.  Subsequently, victims of the various robberies identified Wong Cheung and Chau Kei for having taken part in robbing them.
2008年5月6日，四名非法入境者，包括兩名申請人王祥、鄒旗和鄧軍及王德春在沙田遭警員截查及拘捕。警員發現他們管有在一宗入屋犯法罪中取得的大量貴重財物。王祥向警員承認曾和他人干犯多宗搶劫及入屋犯法罪。其後多宗搶劫案的受害人認出王祥和鄒旗有份參與搶劫他們。

On 4 May 2009, Wong Cheung (the 1st Defendant) and Chau Kei (the 3rd Defendant) pleaded guilty to a number of charges before Barnes J in the Court of First Instance of the High Court.  They were sentenced to 19 years and 17 years 8 months respectively.  Both of them were discontented with the sentences.  They sought leave to appeal against sentence.  After hearing, we allowed their applications and, treating the applications as the appeals proper, allowed their appeals against sentence and reduced their overall sentences to one of 12 years.  The following are the reasons for judgment.
2009年5月4日，王祥（第一被告人）及鄒旗（第三被告人）在高等法院原訟法庭法官張慧玲席前承認多項控罪後，分別被判入獄19年及17年8個月。他們都不服判刑，故申請要求獲准就判刑上訴。經審訊後，本庭批准他們申請並視其申請為正式上訴。本庭判他們的減刑上訴得直並將他們的總刑期都減至12年。以下是本庭的裁決理由。

Charges and facts of the case
控罪及案情

Wong Cheung and Chau Kei admitted that they had committed the robberies in the 6th, 7th and 8th charges with the other people.  Wong Cheung also admitted that he had committed the robberies in the 9th and the 11th charges with the other people, and the burglaries in the 1st and 12th charges.   On the other hand, Chau Kei admitted that he had committed the robberies in the 4th and 10th charges with the other people, the theft in the 5th charge and the handling of stolen goods in the 12th (sic) charge.
王祥、鄒旗承認一起和他人干犯第6、7、8項搶劫罪。王祥亦承認和他人干犯了第9、11項搶劫罪，及第1、12項入屋犯法罪。鄒旗則承認和他人干犯了第4、10項搶劫罪，另加第5項盜竊罪及第12項處理贓物罪。

We summarize the facts of the respective charges and the starting points adopted by Barnes J according to the written statement of Miss Teresa Kam, Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, as follows:
本庭根據答辯人原代表律師高級檢控官金玉的書面陳述將各項控罪的案情及張法官採納的量刑基準簡述如下：

Charge 1
控罪一

In the small hours of the morning in an office of a pumping station of the Water Supplies Department in Ma On Shan, two wooden doors were prized open and the office was ransacked.  After checking, it was found that a torch and a pack of white rice, valued at HK$237, had been stolen.  Subsequently, D1’s fingerprint was found.  The Court adopted 2 ½ years as the starting point.
凌晨時份馬鞍山一水務署抽水站辦公室的兩度木門被撬開，並被搜掠，經點算後發現被偷去一支電筒及一包白米，價值港幣237元，其後找到 Dl 的指紋。法庭採取 2 ½ 年為量刑起點。

Charge 4
控罪四

In the small hours of the morning in a village house in Tseung Kwan O, the male and the female householders and the female domestic helper were fast asleep.  Three robbers prized open the kitchen window and climbed into the house.  Armed with knives, they went into the male householder’s bedroom, woke him up and forced him to take them to the female householder’s and the female domestic helper’s bedrooms.  The three culprits tied up all of them and then ransacked the premises.  They robbed them of property worth a total of $149,000.  The robbers also forced the male householder to disclose the PIN of the ATM.  Subsequently, the robbers used the cash withdrawal card to withdraw over HK$29,000 from the bank ATM.  D3’s DNA was found at the scene.  The Court adopted 8 ½ years as the starting point.
凌晨時份將軍澳一村屋的男女戶主及女傭正在熟睡中，三名劫匪撬開廚房窗爬入屋，持刀走進男戶主的睡房把他叫醒，然後迫使他帶路到女戶主的睡房及女傭的睡房，三名匪徒把他們全部綑綁起來，然後在屋內搜掠，共劫去價值 149,000 元的財物。匪徒並迫男戶主說出櫃員機私人密碼。其後劫匪利用提款卡在銀行自動櫃員機提去港幣29,000多元。在現場發現D3的DNA 。法庭採取8 ½ 年為量刑起點。

Charge 5
控罪五

This was the withdrawal made with the ATM card snatched in Charge 4.  The Court adopted 1 ½ years as the starting point.
這就是從控罪四搶去的自動櫃員卡作出的提款。法庭採取1 ½ 年為量刑起點。

Charge 6
控罪六

In the small hours of the morning, the family of four including the male and female householders were sleeping in a detached villa in Shatin.  The male householder heard some noise and went to the living room to check it out.  He found three men each armed with a beef knife in the living room.  The householder intended to retreat to the bedroom but was stopped by the culprits.  All the family of four were tied up and the three robbers ransacked the premises wantonly.  Property worth a total of $150,000 odd was robbed.  Later, the victims freed themselves and reported the case to the police.  The police found D3’s fingerprints at the scene and D1 was identified as one of the robbers in a subsequent identification parade.  The Court adopted 8 years as the starting point.
在凌晨時份，男女戶主一家四口正在沙田一獨立別墅中睡覺，男戶主聽到有聲音，到客廳查看，發現客廳中有三名各持牛肉刀的男子。戶主企圖退回房內，被匪徒截停。一家四口全部被綑綁，三名匪徒在屋內大肆搜掠，劫去價值共l50,000多元的財物。各受害人稍後自行鬆綁報警，警察在現場發現D3 的指模及在其後的列隊認人手續中，Dl 被認出為其中一名劫匪。法庭採取8年為量刑起點。

Charge 7
控罪七

In the small hours of the morning, four robbers armed with beef knives and choppers went into an OK Convenience Store in Shatin and declared robbery.  They robbed two female staff and one male customer of the property on their person.  The police found D3’s fingerprints at the scene and D1 was identified as one of the robbers.  The Court adopted 5 ½ years as the starting point.
在凌晨時份沙田的OK便利店，四名持牛肉刀及菜刀的劫匪進入店鋪聲稱打劫，從兩名女店員及一男顧客身上劫去財物。警員在現場找到D3的指模，及Dl被認出為其中一名劫匪。法庭採取5 ½ 年為量刑起點。

Charge 8
控罪八

In the small hours of the morning in a villa located in Sai Koon (sic), the male householder and the two female domestic helpers were fast asleep.  Five robbers went into the small house of the female domestic helpers near the swimming pool and tied them up.  They also robbed them of their property including identity card, Octopus card and cash.  One of the female domestic helpers was slightly injured.  She sustained bruises on her head and foot.  The five robbers then went into the big house where the male householder resided.  In a room, they took away 30 pieces of gold ornaments worth a total of $30,000 odd and fled.  Subsequently, the police found the fingerprints of D1 and D3 at the scene.  The Court adopted 6 years as the starting point.
在凌晨時份西貫一別墅中的男戶主及兩名女傭正在熟睡，五名劫匪進入女傭在泳池附近的一間小屋中把她們綑綁，並劫去她們的財物包括身份證、八達通及現金。其中一名女傭受了輕傷，頭部腳部瘀傷。接着，五名劫匪進入男戶主所住的大屋，在房中取去 30 件共值30,000多元的金飾逃去。警員其後在現場發現 Dl 及 D3 的指模。法庭採取6年為量刑起點。

Charge 9
控罪九

In the small hours of the morning, the male and female householders, their two small sons and the female domestic helper were fast asleep in a detached house in Kau To Shan, Shatin.  Four culprits broke the glass house on the ground floor to gain entry.  Armed with knives, they woke up everyone in the house and forced the victims to surrender all valuables and disclose the PIN of the ATM card.  While D1 took the cash withdrawal card to the bank to withdraw $10,000, the other robbers tied up and guarded the victims in the house.  Later, the victims freed themselves and reported the case to the police.  D1 was identified in a subsequent identification parade.  The Court adopted 9 years as the starting point.
在凌晨時份男女戶主、兩名年幼的兒子及女傭正在沙田九肚山一獨立屋熟睡，四名匪徒打破地下的玻璃屋入門，持刀叫醒各人，迫受害人交出所有貴重物品及透露銀行自動櫃員卡密碼，Dl拿走提款卡並到銀行提出$l0,000元時，其他劫匪就在屋中負責綑綁及看守各人。各受害人稍後自行鬆綁報警。Dl其後在列隊認人手續中被認出。法庭採取9年為量刑起點。

Charge 10
控罪十

In the small hours of the morning, the male householder and the female domestic helper were fast asleep in a detached house in Tai Po.  Noise of things being broken was heard from the garden and four robbers armed with beef knives and choppers were seen entering the premises.  The robbers took the female domestic helper to the master bedroom on the third floor and woke up the male householder.  Having tied up the two of them, they ransacked the premises wantonly.  They prized open a safe and stole property worth a total of $370,000.  The police seized from the scene beef knife, chopper and a cigarette butt which was found to contain the DNA of D3.  D3 was also identified in an identification parade.  The Court adopted 8 ½ years as the starting point.
在凌晨時份男戶主及女傭正在大埔一獨立屋中熟睡，聽到花園傳來碎物聲音，看見四名持有牛肉刀及菜刀的劫匪進入單位。劫匪把女傭帶到三樓主人房，並叫醒男戶主，兩人被綑綁，匪徒在屋內大肆搜掠，撬開一個夾萬，偷去價值共370,000元的財物。警方在現場檢取牛肉刀、菜刀及一個煙頭，其中發現D3的DNA，D3亦在列隊認人手續中被認出。法庭採取8 ½ 年為量刑起點。

Charge 11
控罪十一

In the small hours of the morning when the male and female householders and the female domestic helper were sleeping in a detached house in Kau To Shan in Shatin, the alarm suddenly went off.  After checking, the male householder reset the alarm and went back to the bedroom to sleep.  At this juncture, the female domestic helper was woken up by two robbers and another two robbers went inside the house to subdue her.  During a scuffle with the robbers, the female domestic helper had her ring finger cut with a 1.5 cm wound.  After robbing her of some valuable property in her room, the robbers took her to the ground floor living room.  At 8 o’clock in the morning, the householder, having got up, met the four robbers armed with knives in the ground floor living room.  The robbers tied them up and ransacked the house before they fled.  The victims later freed themselves and reported the case to the police.  Property worth a total of $320,000 odd was robbed.  The police found D1’s fingerprint at the scene and a watch robbed was later recovered from a pawnshop.  Under caution, D1 admitted that he had pawned this watch with the identity card and home visit card of the householder.  The Court adopted 8½ years as the starting point.
在凌晨時份，男女戶主及女傭正在沙田九肚山一獨立屋中睡覺，警報突然響起，男戶主檢查後重置警報系統並回房睡覺。這時，女傭被兩名劫匪叫醒，再有兩名匪徒進入屋內把她制服。女傭與劫匪糾纏中無名指遭割傷，傷口達l.5 厘米。劫匪從她房中劫去一些貴重物品後帶她到地下客廳，直至早上八時，戶主起身後在地下客廳與四名持刀劫匪相遇，劫匪把各人綑綁，在屋內搜掠，然後逃去。受害人稍後自行鬆綁報警，被劫去財物共價值320,000多元。警方在現場發現Dl的指模，其後在當鋪起回一隻被劫去的手錶。D1警誡下承認他用戶主的身份證及回鄉證押了這隻手錶。法庭採取8 ½ 年為量刑起點。

Charge 12
控罪十二

In the small hours of the morning, the male householder was sleeping in a villa in Sai Kung.  When he woke up the following morning, he found the main door prized and the house ransacked.  After checking, property worth a total of $25,000 was lost.  The Court adopted 3 years as the starting point.
在凌晨時份一男戶主正在西貢一別墅中睡覺，第二天醒來後發現大門遭匪徒撬開進入屋內搜掠，檢查後發現失去共價值25,000元的財物。法庭採取 3 年為量刑起點。

Charge 13
控罪十三

On 6 May 2008, when the four defendants were stopped by the police officers in Shatin, property robbed in Charge 12 was found upon search.  The Court adopted 2 ½ years as the starting point.
四名被告於2008年5月6日在沙田被警員截停的時候，搜出控罪十二中劫去的有關財物。法庭採取2 ½ 年為量刑起點。

Background of the Applicants
申請人的背景

Wong Cheung, aged 27, Chau Kei, aged 35, and their accomplices all came from Sichuan.  They had no criminal record.  They claimed that their homes were in ruins after the massive earthquake, so in desperation, they came to Hong Kong to commit crime.  However, as Barnes J had rightly pointed out, the Sichuan earthquake took place on 12 May 2008 while they were arrested by the police on 6 May.  Their commission of crimes had nothing to do with the earthquake.
王祥27歲，鄒旗35歲和其同謀都來自四川，亦沒有刑事記錄。他們聲稱因大地震後家園被毀，故挺而走險來港犯案，但誠如張法官指出，四川大地震在2008年5月12日發生，他們在5月6日被 警方拘捕，他們犯案實與地震無關。

The trial judge’s reasons for sentence
原審法官的判刑理由

Barnes J pointed out that the facts concerning the robbery charges were exceptionally serious.  The applicants, acting in concert, trespassed into the luxury detached houses selected, tied up the victims and then plundered their property.  On two of the occasions, the culprits even forced the victims to disclose the PINs of the cash withdrawal cards so that they could steal money from the ATMs successfully.  In respect to the various counts of robbery, Barnes J followed the sentencing guidelines set out in the case of Mo Kwong-sang [1981] HKLR 610 and adopted 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment as the starting point.
張法官指出有關搶劫控罪的案情異常嚴重。申請人集體行動，闖進經選擇的豪宅獨立屋，將受害人綑綁後奪取其財物。其中兩次，賊人更迫令受害人透露銀行提款卡密碼，令他們成功從自動櫃員機盜取金錢。就各項搶劫罪，張法官根據茆廣生案[1981] HKLR 610的量刑指引，採納了6至9年的量刑基準。

In respect of the offences of burglary in the 1st and the 12th charges that Wong Cheung faced, Barnes J adopted a starting point of 2½ years’ and 3 years’ imprisonment respectively.  In respect of the 5th Charge of theft that Chow Kei faced, Barnes J adopted a starting point of 1½ years’ imprisonment.  Barnes J then, on account of the applicants’ guilty pleas, reduced the starting points by one-third to arrive at the sentences for the various charges.
就針對王祥的第1及12項入屋犯法罪，張法官採納2 ½ 年及3年的量刑基準。就針對鄒旗的第5項盜竊罪，張法官則採納了1 ½ 年為量刑基準。張法官因申請人承認控罪而將量刑基準扣減三份一作為各項控罪的判刑。

Had the sentences of all the 7 counts to which Wong Cheung and Chau Kei respectively pleaded guilty been added up, the overall sentences would be 28 years and 4 months and 27 years respectively.   Barnes J ordered parts of the sentences to run concurrently, thus arriving at an overall sentence of 19 years and 17 years and 8 months for Wong Cheung and Chau Kei respectively.
假若將王祥和鄒旗分別承認的7項控罪判刑全部加起，則其總判刑分別會是28年4個月及27年。張法官下令部份刑期同期執行，最終達至王祥和鄒旗的總刑期分別為19年和17年8個月。

Grounds of appeal
上訴理由

Mr Suen Kam Hee, of counsel, who appears on behalf of the applicants, agrees to the various starting points adopted by Barnes J in the respective charges.  He also agrees to Barnes J’s reduction of the starting points by one-third on account of the applicants’ guilty pleas.  The only complaint he has is that Barnes J failed to adopt a global view in dealing with the case, thereby reaching an overall sentence that is manifestly excessive.
代表申請人的孫錦熹大律師認同張法官就各項控罪所採納的量刑基準，亦同意張法官因申請人認罪而將量刑基準扣減三份一的處理方法。孫大律師唯一的投訴是張法官沒有以宏觀角度處理案件，而達致明顯過重的總刑期。

Mr Suen cited a number of authorities to illustrate the excessiveness of the overall sentences of the applicants.  He emphasized that in so far as armed robbery not involving firearms or imitation firearms is concerned, the overall starting point will be no more than 18 years, even if the defendant has committed multiple offences.  Mr Suen in particular pointed out that in HKSAR v Chan Hung Kit (CACC 572/2001), the defendant had, on 9 occasions, carried a knife to rob fashion shops.  He tied up the victims or blindfolded them before robbing them of their property.  The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to a totality of 12 years’ imprisonment.
孫大律師援引多宗案例顯示申請人的總判刑過重。孫大律師強調以不涉及槍械或仿製槍械的械劫案而言，即使被告人干犯多宗控罪，總量刑基準都不會超過18年。孫大律師特別指出在 HKSAR v Chan Hung Kit（CACC 572/2001）案，被告人9次持刀搶劫時裝店，並將受害人綑綁或矇眼後才劫去她們的財物。被告人承認控罪後被判入獄共12年。

Standpoint of the respondent
答辯人的立場

Mr Martin Hui, Senior Public Prosecutor, who appears for the respondent agrees that in so far as robbery not involving firearms or imitation firearms is concerned, the overall starting point will normally be no more than 18 years, even if it involves a number of co-offenders and multiple offences.  Nevertheless, Mr Hui pointed out that there are aggravating factors in this case.  These include (1) the applicants acted in concert with a number of people to commit crimes;  (2) they had come to Hong Kong on many occasions for the purpose of committing crimes, notwithstanding that they had already been punished for their illegal entry in another case;  (3) the facts of these cases are serious in the sense that the applicants entered the private domestic premises very late at night to commit crimes; and  (4) the applicants and their accomplices used knives to threaten the victims and tied them up.  They even obtained their cash withdrawal cards to make withdrawals and the property involved worth over 1 million dollars in total.
代表答辯人的高級檢控官許紹鼎同意以不涉及槍械或仿製槍械的劫案而言，即使涉及多名犯案者及多項控罪，總量刑基準一般都不會超過18年。但許高級檢控官指出本案有加重罪責因素，包括（一）申請人都是夥同多名他人犯案；（二）他們多次來港，目的都是犯案，雖然他們因非法來港一事已在他案被罸；（三）涉案的案情嚴重，申請人都是在深夜時份，進入私人住宅犯案；及（四）申請人及其同黨有用刀恐嚇受害人及有綑綁他們，甚至取得他們的提款卡前往提款，而案件涉及財物的總額亦有100多萬元。

Nevertheless, Mr Hui fairly accepted that there are factors in this case which justify for a reduction of sentence.  These include that the applicants had no criminal record and that they did not use severe or gratuitous violence on the victims in the course of the incidents.
但許高級檢控官亦公平地接納案件亦有減刑因素，包括申請人都沒有犯罪記錄，而在事件中，他們亦沒有對受害人採用嚴重或不需要之暴力。

Discussion
討論

Both applicants are illegal immigrants.  In a period as long as 4 years, they came to Hong Kong a number of times to commit extremely serious offences, including committing house robbery on a number of occasions.
兩名申請人都是非法入境者，他們在長達4年多的時間，多次來港干犯極為嚴重的罪行，包括多次入屋搶劫。

In so far as the robberies are concerned, they are the most serious cases of their type.  The applicants, acted in concert with the others, trespassed into the victims’ residence in the early hours of the morning while they were fast asleep.  They woke them up, threatened them with knives and tied them up before robbing them of their valuable property.  On two of the occasions, they even forced the victims to disclose the PINs so that the culprits could use the PINs to withdraw money from the bank accounts of the victims successfully.
有關的搶劫罪亦是同類案件中較為嚴重的。申請人夥同他人，在凌晨時份，正當受害人熟睡中，闖入他們的居所，弄醒及持刀恐嚇，然後綑綁他們後，才劫去巨額財物，其中兩次受害人更被迫透露私人密碼，令賊人成功利用密碼提取受害人銀行賬戶內的金錢。

Apart from robbing private domestic premises, the applicants also armed themselves with knives and acted in concert with other people to rob a convenience store.  This Court has once emphasized in a case of similar nature, that convenience stores are opened 24 hours and in general, carry large amount of cash, thus are very tempting to robbers.  In such circumstances, the offence of robbing a convenience store is akin to the offences of robbing a bank, a goldsmith shop or other shops which carry large amount of cash, heavy deterrent sentences are called for so as to prevent these shops from falling prey to robbers easily.
除了搶劫私人住宅外，申請人亦有夥同他人持刀搶劫一便利店。本庭曾在同類案件中強調，便利店24小時營業，一般亦存有大量現金，對劫匪構成誘因。因此搶劫便利店的罪行和搶劫銀行、金鋪或其他存放有大量現金的店鋪的罪行一樣都要重判以收阻嚇作用，避免該等店鋪輕易成為劫匪的獵物。

As far as the various counts of robbery in this case are concerned, Barnes J adopted a starting point of 6 to 9 years’ imprisonment which is absolutely correct.
以本案涉及的各項搶劫罪行而言，張法官採納的6至9年量刑基準，絕對正確。

Of course, the applicants committed multiple offences over a long period of time.  The overall sentences must reflect this factor and the other aggravating factors.  However, Wong Cheung’s overall sentence of 19 years and Chau Kei’s overall sentence of 17 years and 8 months reflect that the starting points were 28 ½ years and 26 ½ years respectively.
當然申請人長時間多次犯案，總刑期亦必需反映這因素及其他加重刑罰因素。但王祥的19年總刑期和鄒旗的17年8個月總刑期分別反映的量刑基準為28 ½ 年和26 ½ 年。

As far as armed robbery involving no firearms or imitation firearms is concerned, the starting points of 28 ½ years and 26 ½ are unprecedented.
以持械行劫罪行，但不涉及火器或仿製火器之劫案而言，28 ½ 年和26 ½ 年之量刑基準是史無前例的。

Where the defendant committed more than one offence of a similar nature at different times, it is right for the Court to impose a sentence higher than when there had been only one offence.  However, the sentencer should not add up the sentences of the various charges, instead he should approach this matter as if the multiple charges have been dealt with together and on that basis, arrive at an appropriate total sentence.  (See The Queen v Tong Hoi-fung [1988] 1 HKLR 610.)
當被告人在不同時間多次干犯同類罪行時，判刑理應較他只是一次犯案為重，但判刑者不應將多項控罪的判刑加在一起，而是以多項控罪一起審理為基礎而定出一個合適的總刑期。（見The Queen v Tong Hoi-fung [1988] 1 HKLR 610案）。

In R v Kwok Man-hung & others (CACC 17/1983), four defendants armed with knives trespassed into private domestic premises.  Having threatened and tied up the occupants, they ransacked the house and took away property.  Amongst these four defendants, one of them was convicted of 2 counts and (one of them) 3 counts of robbery.  There was one who was convicted of 5 counts of robbery.  As a result, the defendant convicted of 2 counts was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment.  The defendant convicted of 3 counts was sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment whereas the defendant convicted of 5 counts was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.  The Court of Appeal considered that the sentences were appropriate.  We should point out that the defendants in that case were all young offenders at the age of 16 or 17.
在R v Kwok Man-hung & others (CACC 17/1983案)，四名被告人持刀闖入私人住宅，恐嚇及綑綁居住者後，搜掠及取去財物。該四名被告人中有一人被裁定2項及3項搶劫罪成立，有人被裁定5項搶劫罪成立，結果被裁定2項罪名成立的被告人被判入獄8年，3項罪名成立的被告人被判入獄9年，而5項罪名成立的被告人則被判入獄10年。上訴法庭認為判刑適當。本庭應指出該案的被告人全部都是16、17歲的青年罪犯。

In R v Chan Chi-fai & others (CACC 593, 643/1983), 6 defendants armed with knives trespassed into a number of domestic premises, a dental clinic and a hairdressing saloon to rob.  The culprits tied up and imprisoned the victims for a period as long as 12 hours.  One of the victims was even forced to sign a bank withdrawal slip at knife point.  Two victims were injured by knife.  The 6 defendants were convicted of 2 to 5 counts of robbery and were sentenced to 8 to 11 years of imprisonment.  Amongst the 6 defendants, one was 22 years of age and the others were around 18 years of age.  When the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal against sentence, it pointed out that where there was a multiplicity of offences, public interest must override the individual interests of the applicants.  In these circumstances, despite the youthfulness of the defendants, severe penalty involving long terms of imprisonment was still called for.
在R v Chan Chi-fai & others (CACC 593  643/1983案)，6名被告人持刀闖入多間民居及一牙醫診所和髮型屋搶劫。賊人綑綁及禁錮受害人長達12小時。一名受害人更在刀尖下被迫簽署一提款單，兩名受害人受刀傷，6名被告人被裁定2至5項搶劫罪後，被判入獄8至11年。6名被告人，一名22歲，其他約18歲。上訴法庭駁回他們的減刑上訴時，指出在涉及多項罪行的案件，公眾利益凌駕於各被告人的個人利益。因此雖然各被告人年輕，但仍需判處長期監禁之重刑。

In AG v Ho Wing Ho (CAAR 12/1981), the defendant committed 3 burglaries.  A few days later, in the same building, he committed robbery and rape inside premises twice.  3 days later, he even committed 3 aggravated burglaries.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a total of 9 charges and was sentenced to a total of 5 years’ imprisonment.  When the Court of Appeal reviewed the sentence, it was of the view that the original sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment was inadequate and an appropriate overall sentence should be one of 8 years.
在AG v Ho Wing Ho (CAAR 12/1981)案，被告人3次非法入屋犯法；數天後，在同一大廈兩次入屋搶劫及強姦，3天後更3次干犯嚴重入屋犯法罪。被告人承認共9項控罪後，被判共入獄5年。上訴法庭覆核判刑時，認為原判的5年監禁過輕，而適當的總刑期應為8年。

Compared with the above cases, the overall starting points of 28½ years and 26 ½ years adopted in this case and the ultimate sentences of 19 years and 17 years and 8 months are manifestly excessive.  We must bear in mind that apart from tying up the victims, the defendants and their accomplices did not use any gratuitous violence on them, nor did the victims sustain any injuries.  What is more, we must not forget that the two applicants had no previous record.
和上述案件比較，本案所採納的28 ½ 年和26 ½ 年的總量刑基準及最終的19年和17年8個月的判刑均屬明顯過重。本庭不能忽視，在案中除了綑綁受害人外，被告人和其同謀都沒有對他們施用其他不必要的暴力，受害人亦沒有受傷。本庭更不能忽視兩名申請人都沒有犯案前科。

In our view, from whatever angle we look at the sentences imposed in this case, the conclusion is that the sentences are manifestly excessive.  In our view, although the charges Wong Cheung and Chau Kei faced are slightly different, there is no significant difference between their culpability.  In such circumstances, there should not be a disparity of 2 years in the starting points.
本庭認為不論從任何角度審視本案的刑期，得到的結論是該刑期是明顯過重。本庭亦認為雖然王祥和鄒旗面對的控罪略有一不同，但他們的整體罪責不相伯仲，故不需處以差額達2年的不同量刑基準。

In our view, having regard to the principle of totality, an overall starting point of 18 years is sufficient to reflect the gravity of the offences committed by the applicants.  Since the applicants pleaded guilty to the charges, the overall sentence should be reduced by one-third to 12 years.
本庭認為以整體而言，總量刑基準18年足以反映申請人罪行的嚴重性。申請人承認控罪，故總刑期應扣減三份一至12年。

We uphold the respective sentences imposed on the individual charges against Wong Cheung, but order that save the sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment on count 8 which is to run consecutively to the 6 years on count 9 and the 2 years on count 12, the remainders shall run concurrently with the sentence of 6 years imposed on count 9.
本庭維持針對王祥個別控罪的判刑，但下令除了第8項控罪的4年判刑要和第9項控罪的6年判刑及第12項控罪的2年判刑分期執行外，其餘控罪的判刑都和第9項控罪的6年判刑同期執行。

We also uphold the respective sentences imposed on the individual charges against Chau Kei, but order that save the sentence of 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment on count 4 which is to run consecutively to the 1 year on count 5 and the 5 years and 4 months on count 6, the remainders shall run concurrently with the sentence of 5 years and 8 months imposed on count 4.
本庭亦維持鄒旗個別控罪的判刑，但下令除了第4項控罪的5年8個月判刑要和第5項控罪的1年判刑及第6項控罪的5年4個月判刑分期執行外，其餘控罪的判刑都和第4項控罪的5年8個月判刑同期執行。

The totality of sentence on Wong Cheung should be reduced from 19 years to 12 years while Chau Kei from 17 years 8 months to 12 years.  For the reasons given, we allow the two applicants’ appeals against their sentences and substitute therewith the above sentences.
王祥的總判刑應由19年減至12年，而鄒旗的總判刑則應由17年8個月減至12年。因此本庭裁定兩名申請人減刑上訴得直，並將他們的判刑改判如上。

Teresa Kam, Senior Public Prosecutor and Martin Hui, Senior Public Prosecutor, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent
答辯人：由律政司高級檢控官金玉及高級檢控官許紹鼎代表。

Suen Kam Hee, assigned by the Legal Aid Department, for the 1st and the 2nd Applicant (the 1st and the 3rd Defendant)
第一及第二申請人：由法律援助署委派孫錦熹大律師代表。（第一及第三被告人）