IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
1996 No. 492
Coram: Hon Power Ag. C.J., Bokhary and Mayo, JJ.A. in Court
Date of hearing: 11 February 1997
Date of judgment: 11 February 1997
J U D G M E N T
Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):
1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the total sentence of four years’ imprisonment imposed upon him for two counts of robberyand one count of remaining in Hong Kong without the permission of the Director of Immigration.
2. The application was not made within the prescribed time limit. The reason given for this was that the applicant claims that he wasincorrectly dealt with on the basis that he was aged 25 and that in fact he was only aged 15. He complains that he was unable toobtain evidence from China concerning his age within the allotted time.
3. Before us he produced a certificate apparently issued by a local authority in China which certified that he was born on 1 September1980.
4. A medical report was before Her Honour Judge Beeson the trial judge. In that report the doctor signing the report states that theapplicant declined to give permission to enable tests to be undertaken to determine his true biological age. We invited him now toundergo a similar test and he declined this opportunity. On his application his age is stated to be 20. We therefore proposed proceedingupon the basis of his being a man in his early 20’s.
5. This application is entirely without merit. An application could have been lodged notwithstanding the fact that the applicant wasawaiting the receipt of the evidence he refers to.
6. It should also be stated that even if we had been minded to grant leave for the application to proceed out of time there is no prospectwhatever that it would have been successful.
7. The two robberies involved the invasion of domestic premises at night together with two other men. It also involved the use of achopper to terrorise lady victims. The judge mercifully ordered that the count for remaining in Hong Kong without the permissionof the Director should run concurrently with the robbery sentences. The sentences were neither manifestly excessive nor wrong inprinciple and this application is dismissed.
Mr Frank Veltro, Senior Crown Counsel for Crown
Yeung Chung Lam – Applicant in person/present