R. v. HO WAI HONG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 439
(Criminal)

_____________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Liu, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant is unrepresented. He seeks leave to appeal against sentence. He faced four charges before the court. On the third day of his trial, he decided to plead guilty to the 1st Charge of criminal damage. As for the other charges against him, the Crown offered no evidence and he was acquitted.

2. For his conviction of criminal damage on his own plea of guilty, he was sent to a training centre where the period of detention would range between 6 to 36 months, depending on the applicant's reception of the reformatory measures and his progress. He feels aggrieved by the sentence, and he seeks leave to appeal against it. He claims that the period built into a training centre order is too severe.

3. The matter arose from a debt collection exercise in which considerable degree of violence was displayed and some damage was caused.

4. The applicant himself was responsible for leaving a note outside the premises of an alleged debtor on whom a demand was made. The applicant claims that he was absent when money was collected and that he did not himself do the damage. The only role he played was to put up that piece of paper he had written.

5. The trial judge took into consideration his guilty plea, though made three days after the commencement of the hearing. The trivial damage to extent of $150 was also taken into account. The applicant left a note which stated:-

"Young Chap Yam if you don't repay money I will come again next time, set fire to the house. Your creditor will continue to come up to your door. If you talk about theory again will be killed without mercy. Take care. Take care. Kill, Kill, Kill, Kill without mercy....."

6. In the circumstances, on the other co-defendants for the same charge, the judge imposed a sentence of six months' imprisonment on one and a detention centre order on the other. As far as the applicant is concerned, he is young but he has three previous convictions for robbery, two for theft from a vehicle, two for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and two for burglary.

7. He had been sent to a detention centre before and he was not certified fit for re-admission. The judge therefore sent the applicant to a more comprehensive programme in a training centre. The sentence is in no way wrong in law; nor do we find it, in any way inappropriate. The sentence that the applicant received is a proper one. We find no substance in the complaints of the applicant, and his application for leave to appeal against sentence is therefore denied.