Attorney General v. Fung Wai-tai and Another
Read the full judgment text of CAAR 9/1980 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. This is an application by the Attorney General for the review of sentences on two defendants. The Respondents were respectively sentenced to detention in a detention centre and detention in a training centre. The 2nd Defendant was convicted on four counts of robbery and the 1st Defendant on two counts of robbery. They were all robberies involving the breaking into domestic premises, tying up the occupants, threatening them with knives and stealing property from the dwellings - in some cases v
|
CAAR000009/1980
----------------- Coram: Huggins and Cons, JJ.A. and Bewley, J. Date of Judgment: 25th July 1980. ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Huggins, J.A.: 1. This is an application by the Attorney General for the review of sentences on two defendants. The Respondents were respectively sentenced to detention in a detention centre and detention in a training centre. The 2nd Defendant was convicted on four counts of robbery and the 1st Defendant on two counts of robbery. They were all robberies involving the breaking into domestic premises, tying up the occupants, threatening them with knives and stealing property from the dwellings - in some cases very considerable amounts of money were taken. The learned judge obtained reports from the Commissioner of Prisons and from probation officers and came to the conclusion that both men required institutional training and that the younger man, the 2nd Defendant, required longer training and ought to go to a training centre. 2. We have been referred to a very large number of cases. As we understand it, the purpose of this was to establish that in respect of particular offences there is a band of sentence below which the courts should never go. We are unable to accept this principle. Unless a minimum sentence is fixed by the Legislature, it is always for the courts to decide what sentence within the maximum fixed by the Legislature is appropriate for the particular offence and the particular offender. In this case it was perfectly proper for the learned judge to consider whether training centre or detention centre orders were appropriate. Where we disagree with him is in his conclusion, for we think that these were cases where the circumstances of the offences did not justify sentences of detention in a training centre or a detention centre even when full weight was given to the personal circumstances of the offenders. In our view sentences of imprisonment ought to have been imposed. We think that, having regard to all the circumstances including the fact that this is a review and we are not imposing sentences at first instance, the sentences should be upon the 1st Defendant one of four years' imprisonment and on the 2nd Defendant one of five years' imprisonment. 25th July 1980. Representation: Lucas for Crown/Appellant. 1st respondent in person. Mayne (D.L.A.) for R2. |