R. v. Cheung Yiu Kwan
Read the full judgment text of CACC 387/1994 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 27 June 1995.
1. The applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of indecently assaulting a child under the age of 16. He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. He appeals against this sentence.
|
CACC000387/1994 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1994, No. 387 _______________
_______________ Coram: Hon Litton, V.-P., Bokhary and Mayo, JJ.A. Date of hearing: 27 June 1995 Date of judgment: 27 June 1995 _________________ J U D G M E N T _________________ Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court): 1. The applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of indecently assaulting a child under the age of 16. He was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. He appeals against this sentence. 2. The surrounding circumstances of the offence are distasteful and serious. 3. On 10 January 1994 he approached the victim a boy of almost 14 years of age in the street and accused him of theft. He insisted that the boy accompany him to a secluded area at the carpark at Lai On Estate at Shamshuipo on the pretext of searching him for his wallet. 4. When they got there he masturbated the boy and then demanded that the boy should masturbate him. When he declined to do so the applicant punched him in the face. 5. The boy reported the incident to his aunt who in turn made a report to the police. 6. The applicant surrendered himself to the police and confessed to the offence. 7. The two grounds of appeal are that Deputy Judge Souyave failed to obtain a psychiatric report and had insufficient background information concerning the applicant. 8. Unfortunately the applicant has a bad record. He had two previous convictions for indecent assaults and various other convictions. 9. Indeed at the time when Deputy Judge Souyave passed sentence the applicant was receiving treatment at Siu Lam as a result of an earlier conviction for the same type of offence. In these circumstances it is not surprising that further background material was not called for. 10. What is undoubtedly true is that the public at large needs to be protected from this sort of behaviour. The sentence was certainly not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive and the application for leave to appeal must be dismissed.
Representation: Mr J. To for Crown Prosecutor Mr Peter Wan (DLA) for Applicant |