THE QUEEN v. CHAN KIM MING

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 336 OF 1988

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to theft and was ordered to be detained in a Detention Centre. He is 20 and this is his first conviction.

2. It was a mean crime in that he followed an old couple from a bank, where he had watched them withdrew $3,000. When they reached their flat, he snatched the woman's bag containing the money and fled. Fortunately a hue and cry was raised and the appellant was caught by passers-by.

3. He told the probation officer that he had had to borrow money to pay for damage to a car and was still $3,000 in debt. This was the reason for the offence.

4. The probation officer found the appellant to be thoughtless and immature; but said he now realised the seriousness of the matter. As the family showed concern, he considered he was a borderline case for probation.

5. The magistrate took a serious view of the matter on account of the age of the victims and the amount of money involved. He considered the discipline of the Detention Centre was what the appellant needed.

6. I do not say he was wrong, but he has now been in custody since 6th April and will have had brought home to him the consequences of crime. There is a good chance, I feel, that probation at this stage may prove more benefical than another few months in detention.

7. I allow the appeal and substitute a probation order for 18 months, with conditions that the appellant^. works and resides as directed by the probation officer.