R. v. SZETO WAI-MAN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 440
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Nazareth, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court) :

1. The applicant, Szeto Wai-man, was convicted on 2nd August 1996 of common assault in the District Court by His Honour Judge Davies. He was only 19 years old at the time. The judge, having considered the Young Offenders Panel report that was put before him, made a Training Centre order. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence which he says in his written notice, is too heavy or too lengthy.

2. The facts are these. In February 1996, at an amusement game centre, the victim was alone and was playing video games. Suddenly, the applicant with two others went up to him. The applicant abused him for dating his girlfriend, punched him in the face and assaulted with the other two joining in the assault. The victim tried to escape but he was chased by the attackers. His glasses were broken. He was knocked to the ground. A gold necklace was taken from him and not recovered.

3. In sentencing him, what the judge said is this:

"... the Young Offenders Assessment Panel describes you as: Self-indulgent youth who has no respect for the law. Despite all that you have been through thus far, that is, institutional confinement in the training centre and statutory aftercare supervision for the previous offence of possession of drugs, there has been no sign of a change in your attitude. You have been persistently unruly and indisciplined, abusing psychotropic drugs and heroin. Taking drugs in the training centre, ... thereby abusing the training centre regulations whilst you have been on call.

The Young Offenders Assessment Panel recommends a further period of training in the training centre and I feel that there is really no alternative. There could not be any other sentence which could be properly made here. This offence of common assault is a particularly bad one of its type ..."

4. Before us today, the applicant has added that he was in prison for three months before his trial, so altogether, he has been detained for six months. He asks for a fine and says if that is imposed, he would be re-called to supervision. He adds he can only leave the Training Centre after serving 16 months. His family will not have his support. So he asks for a fine.

5. Having regard to the Young Offenders Assessment Panel report which is very full and detailed, it can be seen that the judge's conclusion and what he said are perfectly correct. The proper sentence is one for a further period in a Training Centre. Clearly, if the applicant is not soon reformed, he will only look forward to a life in which he comes before the courts at regular intervals. He has been sentenced to a Training Centre for reformation. He is concerned that his family will not have his support but the best way in which he can support his family is to reform himself. The best opportunity for that is a Training Centre where he may acquire some vocational skill. Supervision is clearly inadequate of itself; he was under supervision when he committed the present offence.

6. There is clearly no merit in his application. The order the judge made was the right one. His application is refused.