HKSAR v. Au Siu Cheung
Read the full judgment text of HCMA 490/1999 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 19 August 1999.
1. This is an appeal against the imposition of a Training Centre order imposed upon the appellant at the Kwun Tong Magistracy following his plea of guilty to an offence of possessing an offensive weapon in a public place contrary to section 33(1) of Cap. 245. The offence was committed on the 18th January 1999 shortly after the appellant had turned 14 years of age. He was arrested at night and found to have tucked in his waistband a beef knife wrapped in newspaper. He claimed it was for self defe
|
HCMA000490/1999 HCMA 490/99 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE APPELLATE JURISDICTION MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 490 OF 1999 (ON APPEAL FROM KTCC 700068 OF 1999) ____________
____________ Coram : The Honourable Mr. Justice Jackson in Court Date of Hearing : 19 August 1999 Date of Delivery of Judgment : 19 August 1999 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ 1. This is an appeal against the imposition of a Training Centre order imposed upon the appellant at the Kwun Tong Magistracy following his plea of guilty to an offence of possessing an offensive weapon in a public place contrary to section 33(1) of Cap. 245. The offence was committed on the 18th January 1999 shortly after the appellant had turned 14 years of age. He was arrested at night and found to have tucked in his waistband a beef knife wrapped in newspaper. He claimed it was for self defence. Given the strictures of section 33(2) of Cap. 245 the learned Magistrate's only options were to send the appellant to prison, to a Detention Centre or to a Training Centre. He clearly was of the view as set out in his careful and thorough statement of findings that, bearing section 109A of Cap. 221 in mind, prison was inappropriate, and he proceeded from there to conclude that as the appellant was unfit for detention in a Detention Centre but was suitable for detention in a Training Centre - then he had no choice in the matter. 2. Before me, the appellant has said that he considers that his sentence was too severe and that he would prefer to be placed on probation. He professed himself to be unaware of the provisions of section 33(2) and I, having explained them to him, dismissed his appeal.
Representation: Ms Anthea Pang, SGC for HKSAR/DPP Mr Au Siu-cheung, Appellant in Person |