HKSAR v. CHAN CHIU

HCMA953/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.953 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM TWCC 2271 OF 2000)

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This is an appeal against sentence only. The appellant appeals against an order by a magistrate that he be detained in a training centre following his convictions for two offences of theft. He stole two mobile phones. He says that sentence is too severe. He wishes to be sent to prison instead.

2. That is a common request by persons in the position of the appellant. That is because the training centre detention period can be up to three years at the discretion of the Commissioner and is generally thought to be an average period of over a year. Amongst appellants, that is generally considered to be a longer period than would be imposed upon them by way of a sentence of imprisonment for offences such as these.

3. A training centre order is primarily aimed at the rehabilitation of young offenders. Unpopular though it may sometimes be with some young offenders, the success rate is apparently high. It is therefore a beneficial form of sentence to young offenders and by its rehabilitation of an offender at a young age and the higher chance, therefore, of prevention of that person committing further offences in future, it is beneficial also to the community in Hong Kong.

4. The sentencing magistrate, based on the contents of the report from the probation officer concluded that the present appellant would benefit from a period of disciplined training. That conclusion was perfectly proper. The magistrate had the appellant's interests and our societies' interest in the appellant's rehabilitation in mind when he imposed the Training Centre Order.

5. The appellant obviously requires some form of disciplined training. He was unsuitable for detention in a Detention Centre. He was found also to be unsuitable for the imposition of a probation order. His education had terminated at Form Two. He commenced his criminal career with a robbery offence at the age of 14, then followed convictions for membership of Triad Societies and assaults. According to the contents of the Probation Officer's Report, he was exposed to drugs. He continuously breached probation orders. He repeatedly breached the Community Service Order which was originally imposed upon him for this offence, and which breach eventually resulted in the present sentence that he be detained in a Training Centre.

6. The learned magistrate took all of the appellant's background into account. He further considered the proportionality of a Training Centre Order to the two offences of theft of mobile phones. He found, properly, that there was no disproportionality.

7. The magistrate's order that the appellant be detained in a training centre cannot be criticised. It is not too severe.

8. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.