Yu Ting Yee and Others v. The Queen
Read the full judgment text of CACC 558/1968 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 11 November 1968.
1. The three appellants pleaded guilty to three charges of robbery with aggravation. They were each sentenced to mine months imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to be consecutive. The appellants now appeal against these sentences and the ground of their appeals in each case is that their sentences were too severe.
|
CACC000558/1968 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 558 OF 1968 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Morley-John, J. Date of Judgment: 11 November 1968 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The three appellants pleaded guilty to three charges of robbery with aggravation. They were each sentenced to mine months imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to be consecutive. The appellants now appeal against these sentences and the ground of their appeals in each case is that their sentences were too severe. 2. These robberies were committed on the 25th of July, 5th and 14th August, 1968 respectively. In each case the victim was the driver of a public vehicle. In the first case a mini-van driver and in the other cases taxi-drivers. The modus operandi was the same in each case. The three appellants would stop the vehicle and ask the driver to drive them to a certain destination. One appellant would sit beside the driver and the other two would sit behind. The driver would later be told to stop, whereupon he would be grabbed from behind by two of the appellants, punched by the appellant sitting next to him and then robbed of any money and valuables that he might have been carrying. 3. In his statement of findings the learned Magistrate stated, inter alia, that all the three appellants had clear records and all three were 20 years of age. In view of the very serious nature of the offence of which the appellants had been convicted and, having regard to (i) the use of violence against the victims in carrying out the said offences (ii) the fact the victims were either taxi-drivers or public-car drivers who were in law bound to accept fares in the course of their work and who of necessity were more vulnerable than others (iii) the short periods of time between the three offences and (iv) the high incidents of robberies with aggravation still existing in Kowloon, he imposed consecutive sentences of nine months imprisonment in respect of each of the said charges on each of the appellants hoping that these sentences would serve as a severe deterrent against those who might be similarily inclined. 4. Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance provides:-
5. From the record of this case and from his statement of findings, it would appear that the learned Magistrate has not complied with the provisions of Section 109A: No Probation Report was called for and neither was a Training Centre Remand Report called for. The learned Magistrate merely ascertained that all three appellants were of 20 years of age and that they all had clear records. I caused such reports to be prepared and, with regard to the first appellant, the Probation Officer in his report suggested that the first appellant be detained in a training centre and in the Training Centre Remand Report it was stated by the After-Care Officer that he had discussed the case with the Probation Officer who was not willing to accept the first appellant on probation and that a training centre seemed to be the most appropriate place for the first appellant. 6. With regard to the second appellant the Probation Officer in his report stated that the second appellant might hold out some hope to respond adequately to probation supervision. In the Training Centre Remand Report and After-Care Officer stated that the second appellant was a borderline case. 7. With regard to the third appellant the Probation Officer stated that the third appellant might also benefit from probation treatment. However, the After-Care Officer in his Training Centre Remand Report stated that he thought that disciplinary training was required in the case of the third appellant and suggested that he be committed to the Training Centre even though he was a first offender. 8. Even though it was stated that the second appellant was a borderline case for probation, in view of the serious nature of this case and the learned Magistrate's comments in his statement of findings already referred to, together with the fact that the three appellants all appeared equally to take an active part in the robberies, I do not consider that probation would be suitable in this case. Accordingly, in view of the provisions of Section 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance and the Probation and Training Centre Remand reports that I have studied, I am satisfied that the best method of dealing with these appellants would be for them to be detained in a training centre and accordingly this appeal is allowed to the extent that I substitute in each case a sentence of detention in a training centre in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Training Centres Ordinance, Cap. 280 in lieu of the terms of 27 months imprisonment imposed by the learned Magistrate. Representation: Peter Chan (Gunston & Smart) for appellants Addison, S.C.C., for Respondent. Oral judgment reduced into writing. |