THE QUEEN v. HO YUK SUM

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1986 No. 466
(Criminal)

______________

JUDGMENT

______________

Li, V.-P.:

1. The applicant, convicted on his own plea of robbery, was sentenced to 3½ years imprisonment. The facts admitted were that at about 4:30 am on 4th June last year he, together with three other youths, robbed a taxi driver. He was arrested soon after the offence. He was identified by the victim. Some of the stolen properties were found in his possession.

2. The facts disclosed that he took an active part. He was the one who hit the victim on the head with a bottle. He was 16 years old and educated up to the Form 1 level.

3. He had previous convictions. In 1984 he was convicted of robbery and was put on probation. In November 1984 he was convicted of breach of probation order, arrested under a warrant, and sent to the boys' home. After his discharge in May 1986 he was convicted again of possession of dangerous drugs while he was on bail. For that offence he was sent to the drug addiction training centre.

4. According to the Probation Officer's report his father was irresponsible. There was no supervision. Like many of the youngsters who went astray, he mixed with bad company. However there was a lady called Mrs. Chan who was more or less his foster mother who showed interest in him.

5. He was sent to the Drug Addiction Training Centre because he was found to be a drug dependant. Probation was not recommended. The trial Judge sentenced him to prison on the basis that he was a drug dependant and thus not suitable to be sent to the training centre. In so doing the sentencing judge was correct.

6. However at the last hearing we found that he was no longer a drug dependant. We adjourned this case for a Drug Addiction Centre report and a training centre report. The Drug Addiction Training Centre report shows that he is no longer a drug dependant now. Although his father was irresponsible person there is a lady who is prepared to supervise him. The report reveals that a course for a period of time in a training centre will be beneficial to the reformation of this applicant.

7. For these reasons we grant leave to appeal against sentence, set aside the sentence of imprisonment for 3½ years and substitute therefore a training centre order.