HKSAR v. NG KA MAN

1997, NO. MA 746

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL

__________________

__________________

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

1. The appellant is a young woman of 17 years. On 27 June 1997 she was sentenced to a period of training at a training centre by Miss Mary YUEN, magistrate. She now appeals that sentence on the general grounds that it is too severe.

2. She pleaded guilty in December 1996 to the offence of theft. The facts to which she admitted recounted that she offered herself for sex to an undercover police officer from whom she received $1,000. She asked for more but was turned down. Then she ran away but was caught, and pleaded in due course to the offence of theft of the $1,000. She had a clear record.

3. The learned magistrate called for a probation report and a report to establish her suitability or otherwise for a community services order. When the reports came to hand, the latter revealed that the appellant was not suitable for a community services order, but the former stated that she was for a period of probation, with conditions as to work and residence. The learned magistrate found that to be the appropriate sentence to impose. The effect of a probation order was explained to the appellant and the record reveals that she understood and agreed to abide by the terms.

4. So it was that she was sentenced to 12 months' probation from 23 December 1996, but in March 1997 an information was laid by her probation officer that she was in breach of that probation, having failed to abide by a curfew order and to report at designated times on a number of occasions. She was brought to answer to those alleged breaches and found to be in material breach, whereupon she was remanded for sentencing afresh. The learned magistrate called for a further probation report, a training centre report and an assessment from the Young Offenders Assessment Panel.

5. When those reports were to hand, it was said that the appellant was no longer suitable for probation but was found to be so for a period of training at a training centre, which was a proposal endorsed by the Young Offenders Assessment Panel. The learned magistrate adopted that proposal.

6. Before me, the appellant now says that the sentence imposed was too harsh as she reminded the court that she had not offended before. She says that she has learned the error of her ways and she wants to be released so that she can have the opportunity of finding work and supporting her elderly grandmother. She says her parents are no longer alive.

7. I have read the file, the reasons for sentence and the reports that were called for. Every chance was given to this young offender when she was sentenced to a period of probation, and the opportunity to be rehabilitated in a non-custodial environment was hers to take advantage of. She chose to abuse that chance by breaking the conditions of probation, reasonably imposed, on a number of occasions.

8. The learned magistrate, having her back before her for re-sentencing, was commendably thorough in calling for all appropriate reports, including the assessment of the Young Offenders Assessment Panel, the contents of which clearly indicated after the usual investigation that a period of training in a training centre was the appropriate sentence. The decision of the learned magistrate to send the appellant to a training centre cannot in any way be faulted.

9. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.