The Queen v. Fu Yuet-ping

CACC000415/1985

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN

____________

Coram: Hon. McMullin, V.-P. & Silke, J.A.

Date of hearing: 29th November, 1985.

Date of judgment: 29th November, 1985.

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

McMullin, V.-P. :

1. The applicant, FU Yuet-ping, appeared before the District Court charged together with no less than six other youths, and one man of 21 years of age, upon a charge sheet stating some sixteen robbery offences.

2. He was concerned in three only of those charges but the circumstances disclosed by the facts to which he pleaded guilty make it clear that he had been keeping some very bad company. The most serious offence was a taxi-driver robbery on the 27th of June 1985 when, in company with four of the other charged defendants, he boarded a taxi in Castle Peak Road at about 1:30 a.m.. One of his associates produced a knife with which the taxi-driver was threatened. A sum of $498 was removed from the taxi-driver and his “Bulova” watch was also taken.

3. The applicant was involved in a similar offence two days later on the 29th of June in company with five of the charged defendants. On this occasion a weapon was not used. Having robbed the taxi-driver of $250, the keys of his vehicle were removed from him and thrown away. Fortunately police were on hand and all the persons who had taken part were arrested, including the applicant.

4. Subsequently he made a statement in which he admitted to a third robbery committed on the 31st of May when he, in company with three other of the charged defendants, attacked and beat up a boy who was in a shopping arcade. The boy had no money on him and his watch was taken.

5. There was no identification in any of these cases and each case against the applicant consisted of confessional statements. The District Judge imposed four years concurrent on each of these charges.

6. At the time of the offence the applicant was sixteen years of age. The District Judge had before him elaborate reports from the Intake Officer attached to Correctional Services and from a Probation Officer.

7. Each of these correctly described the family background as being one of some complication. To put it briefly, it appears that this applicant is one of a family of several boys and girls who are still living in China, he having been brought to Hong Kong when he was a very young child by his grandfather. For nearly ten years he was brought up by the grandparents, the father only joining him in the same household in 1981.

8. It is clear from the report that he had very inadequate supervision during these formative years. The grandparents though very willing to be of assistance, were heavily involved in their own daily work, as is the case of many poorly paid people in Hong Kong, and the same is true for his father, who also got employment when he came to Hong Kong, but seemed to have little time to spend with his son.

9. It seems indeed an unfortunate benevolence that prompted the grandparents to remove him from his natural family background in China. Shortly after his father arrived, when he was about nine or ten years of age, he got into trouble when he had been running with a gang of child mendicants and was had up for theft. His present offences were obviously once of a similar gang-type nature.

10. The Probation Officer on interviewing him thought that he did show some remorse; and the Intake Officer, although not finding signs of remorse, nevertheless came to the conclusion that the applicant was suitable for a Training Centre programme because, as he puts it, for his long term rehabilitation he needs a stronger foundation of educational and vocational training.

11. The District Judge had these reports before him. He had also the report which indicated that the applicant was unsuitable for a Detention Centre because of an injury to his elbow and having considered the reports he was satisfied that a sentence of four years was appropriate.

12. We propose to interfere with that sentence principally because of the age of the applicant and his unfortunate family background. Four years for taxi robberies of this kind is certainly not in itself an excessive or improper sentence, but taking what may be a chance upon the future performance of this applicant, we propose to depart from the opinion of the experienced sentencing judge to substitute in place of the sentences imposed an order that he be detained in a Training Centre.

Representation:

Applicant in person.

Mr. P. J. O'Mahony for the Respondent/D.P.P.