|
DCCC250/2009
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 250 OF 2009
----------------------
| |
HKSAR |
|
| |
v. |
|
| |
Ho Cheuk-yiu (D1) |
|
| |
Tso Yei-kin (D2) |
|
----------------------
| Before: |
Deputy District Judge M Chow |
| Date: |
5 May 2009 at 11.06 am |
| Present: |
Mr William Siu, PP, of the Department of Justice,
for HKSAR
Mr Kwan Cheuk-kui, of Chan & Chan, assigned by the Legal Aid Department,
for the 1st Defendant
Mr Leung Ka-lok, of Messrs K L Leung & Co., assigned by the Legal Aid
Department, for the 2nd Defendant |
Reasons for Sentence
1. Both defendants pleaded guilty
to a charge of robbery before me on 14 April 2009.
2. The Summary of Facts which they
agree said that on 18 November 2008, PW1, a Form Seven student, walked past
Kwai Hing Estate Carpark , was intercepted by D1 who took him to the rooftop
of Kwai Hing Estate Carpark where D2 and a girl were present.
3. D1 and D2 demanded PW1 to surrender
$600, but he had no money. D1 and D2 then punched him for 10 times.
D2 took away PW1’s PSP Portable Game Machine and $70, the trio then left.
4. PW1 reported the case to the
police. At about 8.35 pm, in the company of the police, PW1 saw D1 and
D2 at the park in Kwai Chung Court and positively identified D1 and D2 as the
robbers. D1 and D2 were then arrested.
5. Under caution, D1 admitted that
he had demanded PW1 to pay him $600, D2 took away the game machine and $70,
D1 and D2 each punched PW1 for five times because he failed to give them $600
as demanded. They sold the game machine for $350 . D1 spent the sales
proceeds of $350 as well as the $70.
6. Under caution, D2 also admitted
that he had taken away a game machine and $70, they each punched PW1 five times
and sold the game machine for $350.
7. In respect of their records:-
1. D1 has a clear record
2. D2 has two previous, one conviction of theft, sentenced to Probation
Order for 18 months. In breach of the Probation Order, he was re-sentenced
to Rehabilitation Centre. The second conviction was fighting in a
public place.
8. In respect of mitigation, D1
comes from a good family. I was shown all the achievement of his sister,
who is a very gifted singer in Soprano and other areas of music. Her family
is here today to support D1. Whatever it may be, D1’s behaviour has disappointed
his parents.
9. As to D2, I was told he was
very anxious to complete his tertiary education as he understands that it is
very important for him to advance further, yet he only can last for a month
in the evening school. He explained that he failed to finish Form one
was because he had skin disease.
10. In view of the mitigation
and the young age of the two defendants, I called for reports. The reports
tell me more about the background of the two defendants.
11. In respect of D1, apart from
the present offence, he also had one outstanding District Court case of robbery
and it was allegedly committed during the bail period of the present case.
12. From the information of the
report, no doubt D1’s family was very concerned about him. However, it
is also clear to me that his parents are both very busy at work. Together
with weak parental supervision and external bad peers’ influence, D1 becomes
rebellious, his parents have no control over him.
13. When he was little, he was
a member of his school’s swimming team and he has won several prizes in joint
school competitions. He was good at sports but he was poor in his studies.
When he went to secondary school, D1 became lazy and also turned wayward.
He could not catch up with his studies, he changed from one school to another,
and eventually he dropped out from school. I am told in March 2009 he
took up a course in the Vocational Training Council.
14. In the report, he also admitted
that he has a habit of taking Ketamine twice a week since October 2008, and
this information was also placed before the YOAP panel when they made their
decision.
15. Due to his asthma problem
he was not recommended to go to the Detention Centre. The YOAP considered
that D1 has been mixing closely with some undesirable characters and he has
not gained any insight into his misdeeds. The panel considered that he
is more suitable to go to the Detention Centre but he is physically unfit to
be sentenced to DC.
16. The panel opines that Rehabilitation
Centre programmes which focus on the monitoring of phased social reintegration
of an offender is a viable alternative for D1.
17. Having considered all the
recommendations by the YOAP and all the mitigating factors before me, I adopt
the recommendation by the YOAP. I order D1 be sentenced to the Rehabilitation
Centre.
18. Now, as to D2, he wrote a
letter to this court and it is submitted to me this morning, the content of
which says that he is remorseful for all his wrong-doings. Reformatory
School report says that he is a defiant and a wilful delinquent, shows poor
response towards Social Work intervention and Probation Service. The report
also says that he is insincere and has little remorse for his misdeeds.
19. This report also tells me
that D2 comes from a broken family; he is being looked after by his mother.
Again, his mother has no control over him. He ran away from home in August
2004 and was placed on Care and Protection Order. Today, D2’s mother and
his relatives are all here to support him.
20. In December 2005, D2 committed
theft and was put on probation for 18 months. He failed to comply with
the terms of the Probation Order and was re-sentenced to the Rehabilitation
Centre.
21. In respect of his education,
D2 has to repeat Form One. Instead of catching up with his studies in
Form One, D2 went to study in a night school as a Form Three student.
It was totally impractical and unrealistic. Eventually he dropped out
after a few weeks because he could not catch up with the syllabus.
22. From the content of the report,
I know that the defendant is now 16 years of age. In the past four years
there are two Care and Protection Orders, one Probation Officer Order and one
Rehabilitation Centre Order and all these supervision orders cannot turn D2
around to bring him back to the right track as D2 continued to associate with
his triad-related peers and relapsed into his undisciplined lifestyle.
23. The Panel was of the opinion
that D2 is more suitable to go to the Training Centre. D2 also agreed
to the recommendation as the 3 years’ statutory supervision that entails his
release would benefit him from reformation.
24. I therefore adopt the YOAP
recommendation that for the future benefit of D2, I impose a Training
Centre order on D2.
| |
(M. Chow)
Deputy District Judge |
|