THE QUEEN v. WONG MAN HO

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Cons V.-P. delivered the judgment of the Court:

1. The Applicant in these proceeding, Wong Man Ho, a boy of 17 years of age, pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of robbery.

2. The facts which led to the charge were e that in the early morning 9th August last year, with four other young men, he knocked on the door of a holiday flat in Cheung Chau. One of the party was armed with a beef-knife and he himself with a wooden stick. When the door was opened his party accused the occupants of throwing rubbish and demanded compensation in the sum of $540. The victims protested that they could not possibly raise that amount. The man who wielded the knife made himself objectionable by banging the table and breaking a glass. The occupants managed to raise $220. Before the Applicant and his party left the scene the applicant attempted to pull out the telephone connection. He was unsuccessful. The man with the knife then cut it.

3. It is conceded by the crown that apart from that and apart from counting the money which had been handed over, the Applicant did no more than stand ac the door with the others. The principal protagonist was the man with the knife.

4. In passing sentence the judge had the benefit of the mitigation put forward by counsel, a Probation Officer's Report and a combined Detention Centre and Training Centre Report.

5. The Probation Officer's Report was not encouraging. He did not recommend probation. The judge was left in effect with a choice between Detention Centre and Training Centre. The intake Officer made no specific recommendation. He merely said "I am of the opinion that a period of disciplinary training will provide him a good lesson in his life.

6. In the end the judge chose Training Centre. In doing so he took into account the gravity of the offence and the fact that tine applicant was a dropout from school who had no special skills and, although he does not specifically say so, that education and training would be provided there but not in a Detention Centre.

7. The Applicant now applies for leave to appeal. Through his counsel, Mr. Alderdice, he suggests that a Detention Centre would be more suitable.

8. Mr. Alderdice has addressed us on the Applicant's behalf with his accustomed charm and eloquence, but with every respect the death knell of his submission was first sounded when, at the beginning, he pointed out that sentencing a boy of this age is a very difficult question which requires the judge to smite a balance between various interests.

9. Whenever a balance is to be struck there is almost inevitably room for a reasonable disagreement as to the proper course to be taken. The knell was clearly rung again when a little later, perhaps by a slip of the tongue, Mr. Alderdice mentioned that either Centre was equally appropriate. It is not the place of this Court to impose our own opinion upon the court below. We can only interfere if the judge has gone wrong in principle or if the sentence is manifestly excessive, which is not suggested here. We therefore express no comment as to what line any one of us might have taken had he been sitting at first instance in this case.

10. We should say that the principal factor advanced by Mr. Alderdice is that the Defendant has a very supportive family and, which is quite unusual, at least, in my own experience his family are present today to indicate that. To that extent the applicant is extremely fortunate. A supportive family is of very great assistance towards rehabilitation. That is frequently stressed by the Correctional Services. But the support of the family is equally important whether the sentence be one of Detention Centre or Training Centre.

11. We have heard what are suggested to be the advantages of the Detention Centre in the instant circumstances. If they be such, as to which we express no opinion, we cannot accept that they are so great as to establish that the judge went wrong in principle in making his choice.

12. For hat reason the application for leave to appeal against sentence must fail.