THE QUEEN v. CHUNG TAT HING

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGIST'RACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 789 OF 1987

______________

______________

Dates of hearing: 19th November, 3rd & 17th December 1987

______________

JUDGMENT

______________

1. The appellant was convicted of one charge of robbery and three charges of theft. They were in fact “snatching” cases, but in the robbery the appellant had shouted “Don't move, robbery” put his hand on the victim's shoulder and pulled off her necklace. All the offences took place in lifts or staircases between November, 1986 and February, 1987.

2. The appellant was arrested for these offences on 30th March and released on roil on 4th April pending trial in July. While on bail he committed another, similar theft offence to which he pleaded guilty on 23rd June.

3. The magistrate in that case remanded him for reports. He was found to be drug dependant and ordered to be detained in the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.

4. When the appellant appeared for trial on these charges he changed his plea. He was remanded for Detention Centre and Training Centre reports, but was found to be suitable for neither, as he was drug dependant and was undergoing treatment.

5. The appellant had five previous convictions between 1983 and 1985, most of them for theft, for which he was put on probation and detained in the Castle Peak Boys Horns. He is now just 19.

6. The magistrate thus was faced with the choice of allowing him to stay in the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre - in effect not punishing him for these offences - or sending him to prison. He chose the latter course, on the grounds that the offences were premeditated and involved a reckless disregard for the victim's welfare.

7. The appellant was sentenced to 15 months on the robbery charge and to consecutive sentences of four months on each of the three theft charges, making a total of two years and three months. The magistrate took into account his guilty plea and his willingness to compensate the victim of the robbery charge.

8. Mr. Wong, for the appellant, pointed out that no weapon was carried and no force was used to subdue the robbery victim. He submitted that, since the robbery was a technical one and since all the offences took place in the same estate, the totality of the sentences was too severe.

9. I had some sympathy with this submission. The appellant had not been to prison before and 27 months is a long sentence for a young man. I therefore remanded him for a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre progress report.

10. To my surprise - and I suspect counsel was also taken a back - the Commissioner reported that the appellant was no longer a drug dependant and was not suitable for admission under a further order.

11. I therefore called for a Training Centre report. The Intake Officer considered disciplinary training, coupled with aftercare supervision, would be beneficial to the appellant and he was considered suitable.

12. At this point the appellant could see himself spending longer than 27 months in custody and wished to withdraw his appeal. I took the view, however, that he had better prospects of reform in a Training Centre than in prison and it was therefore in the public interest that such an order should he made. I suspect this was also what the magistrate had in mind.

13. For these reasons I allowed the appeal and substituted a Training Centre Order for the prison sentence.