Chau Kam Tim v. The Queen
|
CACC000215/1969 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 215 OF 1969 -----------------
Coram: Huggins, J. Date of Judgment: 5 May 1969 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins,J: 1. This is an appeal against sentences imposed for larceny from the person and robbery with aggravation. The learned magistrate ordered that the appellant be detained in a training centre. As to the offences themselves I need only say that as to the second charge the appellant used violence against a Chinese man while another assailant threatened the victim with a knife. 2. The learned magistrate very properly called for reports upon the appellant and he was placed in some difficulty for two reasons: first, the After-Care Officer of the Training Centre and the Probation Officer came to different conclusions about the general attitude of the appellant to his offences. The After-Care Officer came to a rather more favourable conclusion but the learned magistrate in his reasons for sentence said that it appeared that the Training Centre authorities were aware only of the larceny charge and were unaware of the charge of aggravated robbery. He drew that conclusion from the statement of the offence at the head of the report. The second difficulty was that neither officer was able to communicate with the appellant's family. He had given the police an address but the family could not be found at that address: they had in fact moved to a different floor in the same building, although the After-Care Officer, having made enquiries at the management office of the building, was still unable to locate them. 3. I have had the advantage of a further report from the Probation Officer. At the previous hearing the step-father of the appellant was in court and spoke on his behalf, and the Probation Officer has now interviewed the family. This much now appears, that before the appellant left home to work in the New Territories he had given no trouble. He has no strong relationship with his family and during his absence obviously did not keep in touch with them. At the same time the indications are that he got into bad company. The Probation Officer indicates that difficulties may ensue, if a probation order is made, from the loose family relationship. Nevertheless, having studied these reports with some care I have come to the conclusion that despite the grave seriousness of these offences it would be proper for me to make a Probation Order in this case and the order which I propose is an order upon the usual terms with a further residential condition. The appellant having agreed with these terms there will be a probation order for a term of 3 years and the appeal is allowed to this extent. 5th May, 1969. Representation: Mr Evan for Respondent Judgment pronounced by Huggins J. in Court |