The Queen v. So Kam Wing

HCMA000577/1988

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 577 OF 1988

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

BETWEEN

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

Coram: Hon. Bewley, J. in Court

Date of hearing: 13th July 1988

Date of delivery of judgment: 13th July 1988

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant pleaded quilty to criminal damage, contrary to Section 60(1) of the Crimes Ordinances, Cap. 200, before Mr Gould at Tsuen [Ian Magistrates Court and was ordered to be detained in a Detention Centre.

2. The appellant is 19 years of age and is a first offender. He was guilty of what the magistrate rightly describes as "loutish behaviour". He and his companions bought some packets of soup late at night in a 7-11 store. They then emptied the soup powder over a display inside the shop. The appellant also put cigarette ash into a bottle of vita-soy milk.

3. The magistrate called for reports. These revealed that the appellant had previously associated with triad. society members, showed no remorse, had a poor employment record and had weak family support. The Probation Officer considered him unsuitable for probation. The Intake Officer considered him suitable for the Detention Centre. The appellant was not willing to undergo Community Service.

4. For lack of a suitable alternative, the magistrate made a Detention Centre order. On appeal counsel has submitted a progress report on the appellant, from which it is clear that, after a slow start, he is coping well with the demanding regime and, more importantly perhaps, now shows a sense of remorse for what he did.

5. Having regard to the trivial value of the damaged goods, this was a severe punishment for a first offender. It may however, in view of his change of heart, have been just what he needed. I am satisfied that he has now been sufficiently punished and made to realise the consequences of such behaviour. I do not think any good purpose will be served by keeping him in detention any longer. The lesson has been learned.

6. The appeal is allowed and the order quashed.

Representation:

Miss Mary Sin, Crown Counsel, for Respondent.

Mr Derry Wong, assigned by D. L. A. For Appellant.