THE QUEEN v. CHIN CHI HO

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Kempster, JA:

1. This is the judgment of the Court.

2. On 19 September 1991, after an 11-day trial in the District Court, Chin Chi-ho was convicted, with others, by HH Judge Whaley on two charges of robbery and one of conspiracy to rob. Against those convictions Chin seeks leave to appeal. By his written grounds he protests his innocence and alleges that he was forced by the police "to sign three affidavits to confess the offences".

3. On 15 November and 6 December 1990 at the Mak Kwing Kwong Doctors' Clinic in Belcher's Street and at the Ho Wong King Doctors' Clinic in Queen's Road West, respectively, individuals were threatened with a knife, bound and robbed of their cash by a number of young men. These events gave rise to the first and third charges.

4. On 19 November the applicant and others agreed upon a plan to rob another Doctors' Clinic in Belcher's Street by introducing one of their number as a patient. After the bogus patient had been given a prescription the plan was abandoned as it was thought that the police had been summoned.

5. On 12 December 1990 the applicant was arrested in connection with another matter and allegedly volunteered a confession to participation in the two robberies and in the conspiracy that was the subject of the second charge. At trial, being represented by counsel, he repudiated this confession as being involuntary by reason of threats, assaults and inducements.

6. The judge exercised his discretion to exclude the answers he made when charged in the presence of others accused of the same offences but, having heard the viva voce testimony of Detective Police Constable Wong, the subject of protracted cross-examination, Sergeant Cheung and Detective Police Constable Ho found himself satisfied that the cautioned statements made between 4 am and 4 pm on the day of his arrest, between 5 and 9 pm on 14 December and between 6 pm on 19th, and 0005 am on 20 December were made freely and voluntarily.

7. The judge found that the cautioned statements provided detailed, coherent and true accounts of what transpired on each of the relevant occasions. Since the applicant did not give evidence in support of his allegations of threats, assaults and inducements or at all this is a hopeless application and it must stand dismissed.

8. Now we come to sentence. On 3 October 1991, having sent for and considered reports on Chin Chi-ho, then aged 18 years, the judge ordered him to be detained in a Training Centre. Chiu seeks leave to appeal against that disposition seeking something "lighter" such as the substitution of a Detention Centre where the period of restraint may not exceed six months having regard to his age. He had been made subject to such an order in February 1991 for a burglary committed at an amusement centre on 12 December; the offence for which he had been arrested on that date. He had been discharged from detention on 18 July 1991 and then employed as a delivery worker for a fast-food shop.

9. In the course of the robberies with which the judge was concerned over $2,000 were stolen on the first occasion and over $4,000 on the second.

10. Looking at his Reasons for Sentence it is apparent that the judge, having studied the reports, inevitably took the view that the offences for which he was required to pass sentence were more serious than the subsequent offence of burglary and that it was "in the interest of the community and ... having regard to his character and previous conduct and to the circumstances of the offence ... expedient for his reformation and for the' prevention of crime" - to quote from the Training Centres Ordinance that the applicant should learn a trade; a process which might involve his detention for up to three years with a liability to supervision thereafter. This seems to us a most salutary approach and, indeed, the applicant has not advanced any argument to the contrary before us today.

11. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is also dismissed.