|
DCCC 343/2014
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO 343 OF 2014
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v |
|
| |
Lau
Tsz-sang |
(D4) |
| |
Chan
Wai-ching |
(D6) |
| ---------------------- |
| Before: |
HH Judge Casewell |
| Date: |
11 June 2014 at 2.39 pm |
| Present: |
Mr Simon Tso, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR |
| |
Ms Joyce Wu, instructed by Wong & Co, for the 4th defendant |
| |
Mr Ting Koon Hung, Dennis, of Tse Yuen Ting Wong, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 6th defendant |
| Offence: |
(1), (2) and (5) Theft (盜竊罪)(against D4) |
| |
(3) and (7) Robbery (搶劫罪)(against D6) |
| |
(4) and (6) Theft (盜竊罪)(against D6) |
---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------
1. In this case, the 4th defendant, who is aged 14 years, has pleaded guilty to three offences of theft. Those are offences 1, 2 and 5 on the indictment.
2. The 6th defendant, who is aged 17, has pleaded guilty to two offences of robbery and two offences of theft, and those are Charges 3 and 7, and 4 and 6 on the indictment.
3. The offences were committed between 17 November 2013 and 19 January 2014.
4. The defendants have agreed the facts that have been put before them and I have convicted them of their respective charges.
5. In respect of the 4th defendant, the three offences of theft were committed on 17 November 2013, 24 November 2013 and 17 January 2014. All the thefts involved the theft of personal property at basketball courts or playgrounds, involving the theft of personal property such as mobile phones.
6. The 4th defendant has made admission to his involvement in all three thefts. The 4th defendant admitted being involved in the opportunistic theft of items left in personal property stored by their owners, either as a participant or a lookout.
7. The details of the offences can be found in the facts admitted.
8. The 6th defendant was involved in two robberies on 14 December 2013 and 19 January 2014. Two thefts; one on 17 January 2014 and one on 18 January 2014.
9. The robbery in Charge 3, on 14 December 2013, involved a group of young people assaulting another using fists and kicking him, and seizing a mobile phone. The second robbery in Charge 7 involves the violent seizing of a mobile phone by a group of people involving the 6th defendant.
10. There were two thefts; one of those involved a simulated robbery on a person who borrowed a mobile phone from another; that is Charge 4. And then Charge 6, the taking of items, such as mobile phone, from a rucksack left at a basketball court.
11. The 6th defendant made full admissions to those offences. At the time of committing the offences he was clearly on probation for robbery and theft committed in 2013. Again, full details of those offences can be found from the Agreed Facts.
12. As far as antecedents are concerned, the 4th defendant is currently on a probation order of 12 months imposed on 12 May this year for criminal damage. These offences do not put him in breach of that probation order. But the offence of criminal damage appears to have been committed round about the same time as these offences.
13. The 6th defendant was placed on probation for robbery and theft on 2 May 2013. He was subsequently found to be in breach of that probation order and on 7 April this year was placed into a Detention Centre for breach of that probation. And these offences currently committed between the first batch of offences in which he was convicted in May 2013 and his sentence to the Detention Centre this year.
14. As far as the defendants’ personal circumstances are concerned, I obtained reports from the Probation Service and the Correctional Services Department in respect of the respective defendants.
15. The 4th defendant is a 14-year-old schoolboy. Any sentence I give him would primarily be a rehabilitative measure at this stage of his life. He is an only child of divorced parents. He appears to have, in the year 2013/2014, been led into some difficulties. He has been placed on probation and there is an encouraging report about his progress on a probation order. He attends a church; he does charitable work and volunteer work. He described as being obedient and polite.
16. As far as these offences are concerned, as we can see he has made a full admission. He is described as having insight and learnt a hard lesson. The conclusion of the report is, as I have said, the defendant learnt a hard lesson and is determined to reform himself. He is said to have a good response to probation supervision and available family support. This will encourage the court to believe that he has a chance of further rehabilitation under a probation order. And that is the recommended order for him.
17. At this stage, given the defendant’s age, I see no reason to go against that recommendation. In sentencing the 4th defendant I will therefore follow the recommendation contained in the Probation Officer’s report on each of those charges, that is, Charges 1, 2 and 5, you will be sentenced to a period of 18 months’ probation, which of course will run concurrently to each other and concurrently to his existing order in the KCCC700031/14.
18. The 6th defendant is 17 years old, currently in a Detention Centre. He has committed more offences and more serious offences. His offences being committed whilst he was on probation for other similar matters. He appears to be in a situation where matters could deteriorate very quickly for him.
19. The Sha Tsui Correctional Institute has given a report about the defendant’s progress. He is described as average in response to the training programme in the Detention Centre. He has been able to tune into the disciplinary training and made steady progress. His family members pay regular visits to him and show support toward his reformation. This is encouraging.
20. The defendant was interviewed. He was polite. He understood that what he did was incorrect, but committed it under adverse peer pressure.
21. Now, the conclusion of the report is a period of disciplinary training coupled with a period of statutory supervision would be beneficial to the defendant.
22. At this point, he is considered to be more suitable for detention in a Detention Centre, but is mentally and physically fit for a Detention Centre or a Training Centre and there are places available for him.
23. As I observed, the 6th defendant’s offending is more serious and was also committed whilst under a period of probation supervision. The defendant can and should expect a more lengthy period of detention. There must be an element of punishment in respect of his offending, although he is still a young man. Because of his age and his progress in disciplinary training he has already undergone, I consider that a continuation of some form of disciplinary training for him is preferable over the imposition of an immediate custodial offence, which would involve sending him to an adult prison. I do consider that a lengthy period of training than that offered by the Detention Centre is necessary at this point.
24. I consider the best sentence for him and the community at large is that in respect of each of these offences, that is, 3, 4, 6 and 7, he be sentenced to a Training Centre for training. Again, those sentences will run alongside one another but will lead to the termination of his Detention Centre training at this stage. So he will be sentenced to a Training Centre in respect of each charge.
|
(T Casewell)
|
|
District Judge |
|