Chan Yuet-ling v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 27/1972 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. This is an appeal against sentence only. The appellant, a girl of 16 years was convicted guilty on 2 charges of robbery. At about 3.50 p.m. on the 11th November 1971 she went with 2 young men to a medical clinic at 27, Mongkok Road, 2nd floor. There she posed as a patient and she and another defendant were admitted. Once in the other defendant opened the main door to admit a third defendant and another not in custody. Having entered the 3 young men threatened the occupants with knives and whe
|
CACC000027/1972 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 27 OF 1972 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Leonard J. in Court. Date of Judgment: 29th March, 1972. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. This is an appeal against sentence only. The appellant, a girl of 16 years was convicted guilty on 2 charges of robbery. At about 3.50 p.m. on the 11th November 1971 she went with 2 young men to a medical clinic at 27, Mongkok Road, 2nd floor. There she posed as a patient and she and another defendant were admitted. Once in the other defendant opened the main door to admit a third defendant and another not in custody. Having entered the 3 young men threatened the occupants with knives and when one of the occupants put up a struggle that occupant was wounded. They then tied up the occupants and fled with a very considerable amount of jewellery and other property and cash totalling $6,107 Hong Kong and £160 sterling. 2. This was not the first robbery in which the appellant was concerned, for she participated in a previous robbery in which over $1000 in cash was stolen on the 28th July 1971 in which precisely the same modus operandi was followed. 3. In the Court below the appellant suggested that threats had been made to her by one of the men taking part in the robberies that if she did not assist they would beat her up. The learned trial Magistrate pointed out to her that she might have a valid defence, but, notwithstanding this, she maintained her plea of guilty. 4. Apparently her attitude in the Court below was far from admirable and the Magistrate having obtained a probation report and the report from the training centre not unnaturally decided that participation in such serious robberies coupled with her attitude to the Court, indicated that she was badly in need of decipline. He therefore made a training centre order. 5. It is quite clear that no one could reasonably contend that on the information before him the Magistrate acted otherwise than properly. A training centre order could in no way be regarded as manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. 6. On appeal it was presented to me by counsel for the appellant that she had been seduced by and lived with one of those who joined with her in the robberies in question and that a considerable amount of persuasion or coersion had been used to persuade her to act in concert with them. Having heard the counsel for the appellant and with the consent of Crown counsel and counsel for the appellant I interviewed the parents of the appellant in chambers. They appeared to me to be a respectable and responsible couple who had the interests of their daughter at heart. The appellant is their only daughter and she had apparently been somewhat spoiled. Prior to her seduction by one of the others involved in the robberies she had had a clear record and had done well at school. The parents were anxious that her education should be continued and with that aim in view and in order to separate her from all bad influences to which she may have been subject they were willing to send her to Tai Wan to stay with her aunt, a sister of the mother who had children of about the same age, so that she might continue her education there. 7. The appellant was arrested on the 14th of November 1971 and accordingly when she appeared before me had been more than 4 months in detention in the training centre. I therefore called for a report from the training centre as to her behaviour while she was there. I was advised that since her admission she had been consistently well behaved, cooperative, intelligent, obedient and well mannered. 8. While I would not for one moment say that the learned Magistrate had acted incorrectly or that the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, I considered having regard to the additional evidence and information before me that I might properly make a probation order in respect of the appellant. I therefore crdered that she be released from the training centre and be placed on probation for a period of 2 years, I imposed conditions on the probation order requiring her to reside during her probation at such place and to attend such school or other educational establishment as the probation officer might from time to time require. I further ordered that the probation officer should report to the Court after a period of 3 months as to her progress but that should the parents of the appellant decide after consultation with the probation officer to send the appellant overseas for further education, the probation officer should be at liberty to apply for a variation of the probation order.
29th March, 1972. Representation: H. Hu (Seu & Sousae) for the Appellant. Carolan, C. C. for Respondent. (Oral judgment reduced into writing.) |