THE QUEEN v. LAU SIU KUEN

------

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

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

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

Silke, V.-P.:

1. Lau Siu Kuen - "the applicant" - and Ng Chi Man were jointly tried before His Honour Judge Daniell in the District Court for the offence of robbery to which offence the applicant pleaded guilty, as did she also to a charge of theft. The trial judge, having called for Reports from the Probation Service and the Commissioner of Correctional Services, made a Training Centre order in respect of the applicant. She is aged 15 and her co-defendant, who was her boyfriend, is aged 18. He also were sentenced to a Training Order but we are not concerned with him today. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon her.

2. When this matter first came before the Court we thought it proper that we should Ask for a further report as to the manner in which she has accepted the training provided for her in the Training Centre. We have now received that further report.

3. The facts were that on 29th November 1988 the applicant and her boyfriend robbed an elderly lady in a lift at 344 Lockhart Road. The lady was assaulted and knocked to the ground. She fainted and her wallet was taken. That wallet held $2,350 cash, her identity card, two bank current saving passbooks, one bank fixed saving passbook and her chop. Later, the two went to one of the banks and, by the use of the chop, withdrew $6,500 from, one of the accounts.

The girl has had a disrupted family background and she has frequently stayed away from home. She and her boyfriend spent the money they had stolen on their own entertainment. Part of it was to be used for the rent of a flat where they intended to live together. There, is little possibility of proper family supervision and the Probation Officer was not impressed by the applicant's expression of remorse.

4. The Intake Officer's Report concluded:

"The defendant appeared to be an injudicious and childish person. During the interview, she was quite hesitating to give a clear picture about her past. She was unable to uphold her determination and had no aim in life. Although she promised to lead a decent life if she could regain her freedom, however, her sincerity was in doubt. In view of her family's loose and permissive supervision, it was assessed that defendant might need intensive counselling from a professional agent."

5. To us, the applicant has expressed her regret for her wrong doing and signified her desire to turn over a new leaf. She says she has already spent five months in the Training Centre which is a long enough period of imprisonment, as she puts it, in the light of the offence. She is anxious to see her 74 years old father. We noted in her favour that her sister has been present both on the previous occasion and today. The applicant asks us to give her, as she puts it, one more chance.

6. It is clear from the contents of the progress report that her acceptance of the regime in the Training Centre, and her work there, is improving considerably from that which pertained when she first went there. She is described as more active and hardworking, more receptive towards advice and more attentive in class.

7. It is clear that the Training Centre is doing that which it is intended to do - rehabilitate. The better the behaviour of the applicant the sooner she will be discharged by the Commissioner of Correctional Services. Upon discharge, she will be subjected to supervision which she clearly will need.

8. It is very much in her own best interests, though she may not necessarily appreciate that at this very moment, that she remains in the Training Centre and accepts the regime there and learns a skill. The sentence was a proper one, we think it is an effective one and the application is refused.