R. v. YEUNG WAI SHING

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No.75
(Criminal)

______________

______________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Power, Ag. C.J. (giving the judgment of the Court):

The applicant in this matter also seeks leave to appeal against his sentence of two years on the second charge, the charge of which he remains convicted. This was, as can be seen from the facts which we have already outlined, a bad offence. A girl of 20 years was detained against her will to ensure that she remained a prostitute. The courts must take a very serious view of offences of this nature. It is suggested by Mr. Delaney that the trial judge failed to consider the minimal role of the appellant in the charge, and that there was an unjustified disparity when the sentence of the appellant was compared to that of the Detention Orders which were imposed on the 3rd and the 5th accused. There is, we are satisfied, no materiality in the latter suggestion. The judge took into account all of the appropriate factors when sentencing each of the persons involved. Detention orders were appropriate orders to be made as regards two of the offenders. This offender, who had already been in a detention centre, could not properly be considered, given the adverse report, for further detention in such a centre. The judge had to look then to the seriousness of the offence to determine what was a proper sentence to impose. It is suggested that when he did so he failed to realize that the applicant had played what Mr. Delaney describes as a minimal role. We find no merit in this suggestion. There is nothing to establish that the applicant had a minimal role in the detention of the victim. The evidence is that he was one of the persons who detained her. He was clearly on the findings of the judge one of the persons who was responsible for her detention. That being so, we are satisfied that he cannot fall back on a suggestion that he had a minimal role. The judge had to take into account all of the serious factors which we have indicated when arriving at his sentence. A sentence of two years was in no way excessive. The application for leave to appeal against it must, therefore, be refused.