Shum Tat-yan v. The Queen
|
CACC001129/1977
-----------------
----------------- Coram: O'Connor J. Date of Judgment: 1 November 1977 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- 1. The appellant was convicted on nine charges of theft. He is a 16-year-old boy who went with a 14-year-old boy to Repulse Bay Beach on Sunday the 18th September where they stole property belonging to nine persons, which had been left on the beach while the owners swam. The total value of the property stolen was about $400.00. When appellant was caught on the beach by an observant police officer he was in possession of the stolen property. He admitted the offences to the officer and pleaded guilty in court. He had a clear record. The magistrate called for probation, training centre and detention centre reports which showed that both his father and mother are deaf mutes and he was more or less reared by his grandparents. He had been an industrous worker in his grandfather's coffee shop but recently had been keeping bad company, became uncontrollable and ran away. The probation officer recommended probation. Due to an ulcer condition he was unsuitable for detention centre but was suitable for training centre. Both the probation report and the training centre report indicated he had a genuine feeling of remorse. The magistrate sent him to a training centre and in his statement of findings indicated that he was influenced by the frequency with which bathers' belongings were stolen and that he therefore considered a sentence was necessary which would deter other youths. It is unnecessary for me to consider whether general deterrence is an appropriate consideration in ordering a period of training. 2. The appellant is aged 16, has a clear record and shows genuine remorse. He has had an unfortunate childhood. He showed himself an industrous boy until he started frequenting bad company. He is convicted of nine offences of theft but these are all the result of one criminal expedition and should be regarded as one lapse into crime. The articles stolen were not valuable. True he committed the offences in company with a boy of 14 who may or may not have been led astray by the appellant. This type of theft I accept as having been prevalent this summer but having regard to the fact that the sentences were passed on the 3rd October when the summer was coming to a close I doubt if a custodial sentence for the purpose of general deterrence was necessary at the time sentence was passed. The need for general deterrence should be balanced against the interests of the offender, particularly when the offender is a young boy. I do not consider the interests of the public or of the appellant required him to lose his freedom or undergo residential training in an institution. I consider under the guidance of a probation officer he could well live this incident down. Accordingly I set aside the training centre order and put him on probation for a period of 18 months.
Representation: Appellant in person. Mr. Chandler, Crown Counsel, for Crown. |