Kay Sik Hong v Hksar

CourtCourt of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date13 Dec 2006
Judgement NumberFAMC55/2006
SubjectMiscellaneous Proceedings (Criminal)
FAMC000055/2006 KAY SIK HONG v. HKSAR

FAMC No. 55 of 2006

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 55 OF 2006 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM
CACC NOS 278, 279, 286 & 287 OF 1994)

_____________________

Between:

  KAY SIK HONG Applicant
  - and -  
  HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION  Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Chan PJ

Date of Hearing: 13 December 2006

Date of Determination: 13 December 2006

______________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

______________________

Chief Justice Li:

1. On 23 May 1994, the applicant was sentenced by Sears J to a total of 20 years’ imprisonment for numerous offences arising out of a series of robberies with the use of firearms. Earlier on 6 May 1994, he had pleaded guilty. His co-defendant, Leung Kwok-wai (“Leung”) had also pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a total period of 22 years imprisonment.

2. The crimes in question are described as “heinous” in the applicant’s notice of application. Their serious nature was stressed by the Judge when sentencing.

“You two for a number of months embarked upon your own major crime wave in Hong Kong. You robbed banks, supermarkets, game centre and residential property. You callously shot down an off-duty police officer in a supermarket robbery causing him to become paralysed.

The use of guns in Hong Kong’s crowded streets or their banks and shops causes great panic and alarm, it leads to innocent people being shot and great fear being caused to those who work in such banks and stores. It must be made clear that those who use guns should expect little mercy. The public expect to be protected from people such as you and they expect the Judiciary in Hong Kong to take into account such wish to be protected.

On one occasion, you broke into residential property and again shot an innocent person. I do not differentiate between you upon sentence, although one may have committed more offences than the other, and that your pleas of guilty cover the whole spectrum of serious crime.”

3. The Judge stated that a number of the offences should carry consecutive sentences. But as this would mean a sentence of some 120 years, he took the view that he should assess their overall criminality and find a sentence which...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT