Read the full judgment text of CAAR 000017/1991 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 21 May 1992 before Silke, V.-P., Macdougall, J.A. & Bewley, J..
Criminal law – kidnapping – forcible detention – administering chloroform with intent – review of sentence – s.81A Criminal Procedure Ordinance – Training Centre Order – whether manifestly inadequate – use of chloroform on 8-year-old victim – ransom demands – starting point of 10 years – discount for guilty plea – discount on review – custodial sentence inevitable. Material facts: a 19-year-old in financial difficulty from gambling used chloroform to render an 8-year-old boy unconscious, kidnapped him to a hut on Kau Sai Chau Island, and demanded ransom of up to HK$200,000 from the child's parents while making false threats that bombs were tied to the boy; the parents eventually delivered HK$50,000 in marked money and the respondent was arrested upon releasing the boy in Cheung Chau. Legal issues: whether the trial judge's Training Centre Order for the offences of forcible detention under s.42 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance and administering chloroform with intent under s.21 was manifestly inadequate; and what was the appropriate custodial sentence on review. Holdings: the Training Centre Order was manifestly inadequate and an immediate custodial sentence was required because kidnapping is an offence of considerable gravity, the use of chloroform was a grave aggravating feature, the threats were vicious, and deterrence was the predominant sentencing consideration, as confirmed in R. v. Shiu Kwok Kwan and Others, R. v. Kau Ka Shing, A.G. v. Chan Ka Shu and The Queen v. Chan Yuk Lun; a starting point of 10 years would not have been inappropriate, reducing to 7 years at trial after allowance for the guilty plea and personal circumstances, and further reduced to 5 years on review in view of the alteration in the nature of the sentence. Outcome: Attorney General's application allowed; Training Centre Order set aside and a sentence of 5 years imprisonment substituted.
Legal issues: Whether the Training Centre Order was manifestly inadequate for kidnapping by chloroform · Appropriate length of custodial sentence on review for kidnapping with chloroform
Outcome: Application allowed; Training Centre Order set aside and sentence of 5 years imprisonment substituted on review.