Read the full judgment text of CACC 000298/2005 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 20 February 2006 before Stuart-Moore VP, McMahon and Lunn JJ.
Criminal law – burglary – sentence – training centre order – community service order – leave to appeal – disparity – breach of trust – rehabilitation – co-defendants' statements on sentence – suitability for community service – judicial discretion – review of HKSAR v Chow Chak-man and Anor. The applicant, aged 18 years 10 months and a former computer assistant at the Salvation Army William Booth Secondary School, was convicted after trial in the District Court of burglary of the school's storeroom, in which 38 sets of laptop computers valued at HK$162,500 were stolen; only 19 were removed and 18 were sold for HK$8,500. Three co-defendants (D1, D3, D4) pleaded guilty at the start of the trial and were sentenced to community service orders, with D1 giving evidence for the prosecution; a fifth defendant (D5) received a probation order for handling the proceeds. The applicant, who had left his job at the school only weeks before, was sentenced to detention in a training centre. On appeal, four substantive grounds were advanced plus a review of HKSAR v Chow Chak-man and Anor. The first ground challenged the trial judge's failure to obtain a community service order suitability report – the court held that no such report was required where the judge had decided community service was not a viable option, so as to avoid false hope and the wasteful use of resources. The second ground, held to be sound, concerned the judge's reliance on remarks made by D4 and D5 to a probation officer to cast the applicant as the 'mastermind' – this court had previously criticised the same approach in HKSAR v Wong Wan-heung and Ors and HKSAR v Lee Wan-fung, and the sentencing process therefore had to be re-commenced. The third ground (objectionable disparity) was rejected: the applicant alone pleaded not guilty, was a former employee who committed a breach-of-trust burglary of his own school, and played a role at least as significant as D1, while the younger D3 and D4 were properly distinguished. The fourth ground (genuine remorse) was rejected: the probation officer's report did not record whole-hearted remorse and, in any event, the gravity of the burglary made community service inappropriate. The fifth ground sought to rely on HKSAR v Chow Chak-man and Anor to support a community service order – the court reviewed and effectively overruled that decision, confirming that the six 'characterisations' taken from R v Brown are not alternatives but must cumulatively be considered, and that community service is rarely appropriate for burglary save in exceptional cases. The application for leave to appeal against conviction was not pursued and was dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed; the training centre order was upheld as an appropriate rehabilitative sentence for a young first offender with strong positive features in his background and personal circumstances.
Legal issues: Whether absence of community service order report is an appealable error · Reliance on co-defendants' untested remarks to determine applicant's role in sentencing · Objectionable disparity between training centre order and co-defendants' community service orders · Whether the applicant showed genuine remorse making community service appropriate · Review of HKSAR v Chow Chak-man and Anor and propriety of community service for burglary
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal against conviction abandoned and dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed and training centre order upheld.
Cites 2 cases