Attorney General v. Chan Siu-to

CAAR000007/1980

Sentence - robbery - Drug Addiction Treatment Centre order - accused armed with weapons and breaking into a dwelling-house - occupants tied up - sentence of immediate imprisonment substituted.

-----------------

Coram: Huggins and Leonard, JJ.A. and Addison, J.

Date of Judgment: 9 July 1980

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

Huggins, J.A.:

1. Pursuant to leave granted by the Chief Justice the Attorney General applies for a review of sentence. On a charge of robbery the Respondent was sentenced to detention in a drug addiction treatment centre. The learned judge drew attention to the fact that the Defendant himself acknowledged that his problem resulted from his drug addiction and that he wished to receive rehabilitation treatment. The judge took the view that a person with a medical problem should not be sent to prison when the Government has provided a drug addiction treatment centre for this kind of person. But for that view he would have sentenced him to about four years' imprisonment.

2. It is submitted that it was wrong in principle to make a drug addiction treatment centre order in a case as serious as the present. The Respondent with others broke into a house which was used in part for dwelling purposes. They were armed with weapons and tied up those who were inside and who subsequently came to the premises. Counsel for the Crown has submitted to us a list of cases of somewhat similar nature and he submits that a sentence such as that contemplated by the learned District Judge was probably appropriate. Counsel has drawn our attention to the case of Tse Yeung Lai v Reg. 1977 Crim. App. No. 656 (unreported), in which this court said that a sentence of up to six years' imprisonment would probably not be interfered with in cases where gangs made armed raids upon domestic houses. In Applications for Review of Certain Sentences 1974 H.K.L.R. 55, 61, the court observed:

"But we think that it is only in the rarest case that [an order of detention in an addiction treatment centre] should be made [in a case of robbery]."

In our view this was not one of those very rare cases. We think the application must be granted and that a sentence of four years' imprisonment should be substituted. We order accordingly.

9th July 1980.

Representation:

Lucas for Crown/Appellant.

Respondent in person.