HKSAR v. FUNG SUN LOK

CACC 372/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 372 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 405/1999)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Mayo J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The Applicant pleaded guilty to one count of attempted burglary and one count of the substantive offence. He appeared before Her Honour Judge Toh in the District Court and was sentenced to be detained in a Training Centre. He now seeks leave to appeal against this sentence.

2. The facts were quite straight forward. On the first offence a neighbour made a report to the police that a man was acting suspiciously in the early hours of the morning at Tak Lok House, Tak Tin Estate. Police officers arrived at the scene and swept the area. They found the Applicant who had in his possession a pair of scissors, a pair of gloves and a torch. He admitted that his possession of these articles was to facilitate an attempt to burgle premises. His attempt to enter premises had been unavailing. He also admitted that his attempt some days earlier had been successful and that he had stolen the items referred to in the second charge. The owner of the goods had subsequently identified them.

3. The Applicant was aged 20 at the time of the offences and had a previous clear record. The Judge therefore called for Training and Detention Centre Reports.

4. What emerges from these reports is that the Applicant was an undisciplined and somewhat feckless youth who had left school at the age of 15 and had had a very chequered history of employment.

5. On a personal basis he had impregnated his girlfriend who had given birth to a daughter. He had subsequently married the girl but as she was from the Mainland, she was unable to look after the baby. The Applicant's parents have been looking after the baby.

6. The Applicant himself complains that if he was to remain in a Training Centre, he will be unable to contribute towards the family finances. This is not a good reason to quash the Training Centre order.

7. In fact the disciplined regime of a Training Centre is exactly what this young man requires.

8. The application is without merit and is dismissed.