The Queen v. Hung Tin Ho
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 955/1995 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 19 December 1995.
1. This was an appeal against a sentence of Training Centre imposed for an offence of common assault. This was the Appellant's first conviction and a sentence of Training Centre for such a conviction was manifestly excessive. I allowed the appeal, removed the Training Centre order and replaced it with a Probation Order for 12 months on condition that the Appellant live and work as directed by his Probation Officer.
|
HCMA000955/1995 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 955 OF 1995 ----------------------
----------------------- Coram : Hon. Duffy, J. in Court Date of hearing : 21 November 1995 and 12 December 1995 Date of handing down judgment : 19 December 1995 --------------------- J U D G M E N T -------------------- 1. This was an appeal against a sentence of Training Centre imposed for an offence of common assault. This was the Appellant's first conviction and a sentence of Training Centre for such a conviction was manifestly excessive. I allowed the appeal, removed the Training Centre order and replaced it with a Probation Order for 12 months on condition that the Appellant live and work as directed by his Probation Officer. 2. The punishment must fit the crime. Sentencing tribunals must not assume the role of Social Worker. It is not the task of the sentencing tribunal to involve itself in the educational and vocational needs of the appellant unless the appellant's crime merits institutional training and therefore consideration of these matters. The present crime quite obviously did not. Representation: Mr F. Veltro, C.C., for Crown Mr Peter Wan (D.L.A.) for Appellant
|