THE QUEEN v. CHAN WING-KWOK

Not for Circulation

-----------------

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

Nazareth V-P:

1. The applicant, Chan Wing-kwok, pleaded guilty with two other defendants to conspiracy to rob before His Honour Judge Surman in the District Court on 17th July 1996. He was 15 years old at the time, the other two defendants being also male, aged 18. Because of their ages, the judge remanded them in custody for Training Centre, Detention Centre and Probation Reports. Each of the defendants had admitted to being in a taxi together in the early hours of 12th January 1996 with a joint plan of robbing a taxi-driver. Fortunately for them the plan was frustrated by the intervention of the police when they stopped the taxi and searched it. The applicant with the others admitted to possession of a broken bottle and their plan to rob. The tenor of the reports obtained by the judge indicated that each of the defendants required supervision and training. The probation reports did not recommend probation for any of them.

2. The judge observed that the offence of conspiracy to rob in the circumstances in question would normally demand a substantial prison term. He added, however, that having regard to their youth, their pleas of guilty and the fact that no robbery actually took place, he was most reluctant to send such young persons to prison. In the event, he concluded that a Training Centre order should be made in respect of each. It was urged on him, presumably by the legal representative of the applicant, that he should consider the shorter option of a Detention Centre order. However, he concluded that the possible duration of a Training Centre order could also be short. Besides, he observed that a Training Centre would also have the advantage of training the applicant for some worthwhile occupation following his expected release and also that he would have the benefit of mandatory supervision. For those reasons that he made a Training Centre order in respect of the applicant.

3. In his written notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence dated 14th August 1996, only three days after the order was made, the applicant pointed out that he was a student, aged 15 years old. He added that he thought the sentence was too heavy.

4. Before us today he again suggests that the sentence is too heavy and has asked the court to consider letting him out. He also says he misses his family members. That is understandable given his age.

5. On the other hand, the judge gave very careful consideration to the matter. He not unnaturally took the view that rehabilitation was very important particularly with this young applicant whose whole life is before him. His conclusion that a Training Centre was indicated, cannot be faulted. We have no doubt that was the right order. We hope it does result in full rehabilitation of this young offender.

6. We would point out to him that if he takes the rehabilitation programme seriously and behaves himself, he will no doubt impress those who are looking after him which might result in a shorter period before he is released under supervision.

7. There are no goods reasons for granting leave to appeal against sentence. We refuse the application.