BabelCite

The Attorney General v. Wong Loy-hing and Another

Read the full judgment text of CAAR 1/1977 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.

1. The two respondents pleaded guilty to one charge of robbery and one charge of "allowing to be carried in a conveyance taken without authority" contrary to section 14(1) of the Theft Ordinance. They were each sentenced to detention in a detention centre in respect of the robbery charge and to a term of imprisonment of six months, which term was ordered to be suspended for two years in respect of the charge brought under the Theft Ordinance.

Case No.CAAR 1/1977
Court
Court of Appeal
Date—
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CAAR000001/1977

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL  
   
  1977 No. 1
  Application for Review

BETWEEN:    
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Appellant
  and  
  WONG LOY-HING Respondents
  SO SHUI  

Coram: Briggs, C.J., Huggins & Pickering, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 25th January, 1977.

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

DECISION

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

1. The two respondents pleaded guilty to one charge of robbery and one charge of "allowing to be carried in a conveyance taken without authority" contrary to section 14(1) of the Theft Ordinance. They were each sentenced to detention in a detention centre in respect of the robbery charge and to a term of imprisonment of six months, which term was ordered to be suspended for two years in respect of the charge brought under the Theft Ordinance.

2. The application by the Attorney General is made on the ground that the sentences imposed for the offence under the Theft Ordinance are not authorised by law. Section 4(1) of the Detention Centres Ordinance reads as follows:-

"4. (1) Where a person who is apparently a young offender is found guilty of a relevant offence the court may, if it is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case and having regard to his character and previous conduct it is in his interest and the public interest that he should undergo a period of detention in a detention centre, in lieu of imposing any other sentence, make a detention order against him."

3. Mr. Macdougall, who appeared for the Attorney General argued that the wording of that section clearly means that it is not possible for a judge to impose a sentence of imprisonment for an offence on a person in respect of whom a detention order has been made. He also referred to section 7 of the Ordinance and to the case of Li Chi Ming v. The Queen(1) in support of his argument.

4. The case of Li Chi Ming concerned an order made under the Training Centres Ordinance and Mr. Macdougall is clearly right. The whole purpose of the Detention Centres Ordinance is to give a short sharp shock to a young offender and the words of section 4(1) of the Ordinance clearly indicate that no other sentence should be imposed on a person in respect of whom such an order has been made.

5. In the event we therefore allow this application and we quash the sentences passed on each of the respondents for the offence under the Theft Ordinance and substitute therefor an order for detention under the Detention Centres Ordinance.

  (Geoffrey Briggs)
  President.

Representation:

Macdougall for the Crown.

Both respondents in person.

(1) Crim. App. 279/71.