Li Chung-fai v. The Queen

Case No.CACC 75/1975

Court

Court of Appeal

Date24 Feb 1975

Judge—

Case Document

100%

CACC000075/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 75 OF 1975

-----------------

BETWEEN:
	LI Chung-fai	Appellant
	and
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 24th February, 1975

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The appellant pleaded guilty to three charges: two charges of robbery and one charge of being a member of a triad society. He was sentenced to eighteen months on the first charge, nine months on the second charge and to three months on the third charge, all three sentences to be served consecutively. He was also sentenced to two years' police supervision on the termination of his sentences.

2. The facts of the two robberies are that the appellant with another man robbed two different persons of their watches. There was no weapon used in either case. The appellant is aged 17 and has a clear record. The magistrate considered whether this man should be sent to a training centre and came to the conclusion that such an order should not be made in this case. The magistrate had before him when passing sentence a report from a probation officer which states that the appellant had evaded his responsibilities towards his family. He has not been living at home for the past two years.

3. In my view the sentence of thirty months' imprisonment is manifestly excessive in this case. This is in my view a classic case where an order for detention in a training centre should be made. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the three sentences of imprisonment are quashed and an order that the appellant be detained in a training centre is substituted therefor.

4. This appellant was associated with one CHAU Yuen, who was sentenced to detention in a detention in a detention centre and police supervision for two years. The Full Court, in Application for Review No.1 of 1975, set aside the order for police supervision as being inappropriate being coupled with a sentence of detention in a detention centre. For the reasons given in that judgment the order for two years police supervision in this present case is quashed.

	(Geoffrey Briggs)
	Chief Justice.

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Lucas, c.c. for Crown/Respondent2