Or King Ling v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 529/1974 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. The appellant in this case is 18 years old. He was charged that, together with another person not in custody, he robbed the complainant, in a public lavatory, of a wristwatch, a gold finger ring, a lighter and a ball pen. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment and now appeals against that sentence.
|
CACC000529/1974 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 529 OF 1974 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Pickering, J. Date of Judgment: 13th August, 1974 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant in this case is 18 years old. He was charged that, together with another person not in custody, he robbed the complainant, in a public lavatory, of a wristwatch, a gold finger ring, a lighter and a ball pen. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment and now appeals against that sentence. 2. His criminal record form reveals one previous conviction in respect of two robberies when he was sent to a detention centre. In fact, at the time of that conviction, he was on probation in regard to another robbery in respect of which no conviction had been recorded. He served approximately four months in the detention centre. 3. There was no evidence before me that any weapon was either used or produced in the course of this robbery, although it is to be observed that the learned magistrate's statement of findings do not set out the facts of the robbery and in regard to those facts his own record reads "Facts read and defendant agrees", there being no written statement of the facts in the court record. In those circumstances I must assume that no weapon was in fact either used or produced. 4. I have observed that the appellant spent four months in a detention centre upon the only occasion on which, so far, he has suffered a custodial sentence. He is but 18 years old and it is far too early to take the view that he is irredeemable. In my opinion the leap from four months in a detention centre to two years imprisonment is too great having regard to the appellant's age, and not ignoring his growing record. That is not to say however, that a prison sentence is not appropriate, since detention in a detention centre has proved ineffective. 5. The appeal is allowed and the sentence of two years imprisonment reduced to one of twelve months imprisonment. Representation: Appellant in person. Hanson, C.C., for respondent. |