THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG WING KEUNG AND OTHERS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 103 OF 1990

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

BETWEEN

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The three appellants pleaded guilty before Mr J.C. Morley to three charges of robbery and were each sentenced to be detained in the Training Centre. Two of the robbery charges related to one' incident, that is, on the 24th October 1989, two school boys were intercepted on their way home by the appellants who forced them into a park where they were threatened and $30, a walkman and two rail tickets were taken from them, The second incident took place on the 1st November 1989 when another school boy was threatened and robbed of a walkman. In respect of this incident, the appellants claimed in 'mitigation that it was a matter which arose out of an earlier quarrel with the victim.

2. While any offence of robbery is serious, these were offences at the very lowest end of the robbery scale. No weapons were used and no injuries were inflicted.

3. The magistrate obtained reports from the probation office, detention centre and training centre in respect of all of the appellants; the 2nd and 3rd appellants were found to be suitable for probation, training centre and detention centre, the 1st appellant was suitable for probation and training centre.

4. The Magistrate concluded in respect of each of the appellants that their problems were deeply rooted and that they would require a very long period of training in a structured environment if they were to reform. He felt that in the interests of the community and for prevention of crime and expedient for the reformation of the appellants, that they be sent to a training centre.

5. In electing to take this course, the Magistrate was obliged under section 4(1) of the Training Centre Ordinance, Cap. 280 to have regard to an appellant's character and previous conduct and to the circumstances .of the offences as well as to the interests of the community. The reports reveal that none of the appellants had shown any serious behavioural problems up to the date of the first offence. The 1st and the 3rd appellants are each said by their employers to be hardworking and punctual. They all had clear records; they all pleaded guilty and the Magistrate accepted that they were genuinely, remorseful. They all come from solid family backgrounds but had not received sufficient parental supervision in the past due to family commitments.The parents all expressed themselves to be very anxious to be given a chance to assist in the rehabilitation of their sons. In respect of the 2nd appellant, his sister had resigned from a good position which involved overseas travel specifically to render her brother assistance. When regard has had to the facts of the offences and to the details of the reports, I have to say, with respect to the Magistrate that I do not find so compelling the need to send the appellants to a training centre. I am of the opinion that there is a real chance of reformation being accomplished without the need for a custodial sentence. The appellants have served two months' in custody which should, in itself, be a salutary lesson to them.

6. I propose to allow the appeals by substituting a term of 12 months' probation for the training centre sentences. The appellants will work and reside as directed by the probation officer and shall stay at their places of residence between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. unless the consent of the probation officer is first obtained.