HKSAR v. Ho Cheuk Yiu and Another
|
DCCC250/2009 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 250 OF 2009 ----------------------
----------------------
Reasons for Sentence
1.Both defendants pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery before me on 14 April 2009. 2.The Summary of Facts which they agree said that on 18 November 2008, PW1, a Form Seven student, walked past Kwai Hing Estate Carpark , was intercepted by D1 who took him to the rooftop of Kwai Hing Estate Carpark where D2 and a girl were present. 3.D1 and D2 demanded PW1 to surrender $600, but he had no money. D1 and D2 then punched him for 10 times. D2 took away PW1’s PSP Portable Game Machine and $70, the trio then left. 4.PW1 reported the case to the police. At about 8.35 pm, in the company of the police, PW1 saw D1 and D2 at the park in Kwai Chung Court and positively identified D1 and D2 as the robbers. D1 and D2 were then arrested. 5.Under caution, D1 admitted that he had demanded PW1 to pay him $600, D2 took away the game machine and $70, D1 and D2 each punched PW1 for five times because he failed to give them $600 as demanded. They sold the game machine for $350 . D1 spent the sales proceeds of $350 as well as the $70. 6.Under caution, D2 also admitted that he had taken away a game machine and $70, they each punched PW1 five times and sold the game machine for $350. 7.In respect of their records:-
8.In respect of mitigation, D1 comes from a good family. I was shown all the achievement of his sister, who is a very gifted singer in Soprano and other areas of music. Her family is here today to support D1. Whatever it may be, D1’s behaviour has disappointed his parents. 9.As to D2, I was told he was very anxious to complete his tertiary education as he understands that it is very important for him to advance further, yet he only can last for a month in the evening school. He explained that he failed to finish Form one was because he had skin disease. 10.In view of the mitigation and the young age of the two defendants, I called for reports. The reports tell me more about the background of the two defendants. 11.In respect of D1, apart from the present offence, he also had one outstanding District Court case of robbery and it was allegedly committed during the bail period of the present case. 12.From the information of the report, no doubt D1’s family was very concerned about him. However, it is also clear to me that his parents are both very busy at work. Together with weak parental supervision and external bad peers’ influence, D1 becomes rebellious, his parents have no control over him. 13.When he was little, he was a member of his school’s swimming team and he has won several prizes in joint school competitions. He was good at sports but he was poor in his studies. When he went to secondary school, D1 became lazy and also turned wayward. He could not catch up with his studies, he changed from one school to another, and eventually he dropped out from school. I am told in March 2009 he took up a course in the Vocational Training Council. 14.In the report, he also admitted that he has a habit of taking Ketamine twice a week since October 2008, and this information was also placed before the YOAP panel when they made their decision. 15.Due to his asthma problem he was not recommended to go to the Detention Centre. The YOAP considered that D1 has been mixing closely with some undesirable characters and he has not gained any insight into his misdeeds. The panel considered that he is more suitable to go to the Detention Centre but he is physically unfit to be sentenced to DC. 16.The panel opines that Rehabilitation Centre programmes which focus on the monitoring of phased social reintegration of an offender is a viable alternative for D1. 17.Having considered all the recommendations by the YOAP and all the mitigating factors before me, I adopt the recommendation by the YOAP. I order D1 be sentenced to the Rehabilitation Centre. 18.Now, as to D2, he wrote a letter to this court and it is submitted to me this morning, the content of which says that he is remorseful for all his wrong-doings. Reformatory School report says that he is a defiant and a wilful delinquent, shows poor response towards Social Work intervention and Probation Service. The report also says that he is insincere and has little remorse for his misdeeds. 19.This report also tells me that D2 comes from a broken family; he is being looked after by his mother. Again, his mother has no control over him. He ran away from home in August 2004 and was placed on Care and Protection Order. Today, D2’s mother and his relatives are all here to support him. 20.In December 2005, D2 committed theft and was put on probation for 18 months. He failed to comply with the terms of the Probation Order and was re-sentenced to the Rehabilitation Centre. 21.In respect of his education, D2 has to repeat Form One. Instead of catching up with his studies in Form One, D2 went to study in a night school as a Form Three student. It was totally impractical and unrealistic. Eventually he dropped out after a few weeks because he could not catch up with the syllabus. 22.From the content of the report, I know that the defendant is now 16 years of age. In the past four years there are two Care and Protection Orders, one Probation Officer Order and one Rehabilitation Centre Order and all these supervision orders cannot turn D2 around to bring him back to the right track as D2 continued to associate with his triad-related peers and relapsed into his undisciplined lifestyle. 23.The Panel was of the opinion that D2 is more suitable to go to the Training Centre. D2 also agreed to the recommendation as the 3 years’ statutory supervision that entails his release would benefit him from reformation. 24.I therefore adopt the YOAP recommendation that for the future benefit of D2, I impose a Training Centre order on D2.
|