The Queen v. Iu Chong and Others

CACC000129A/1984

BETWEEN

Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Silke & Kempster, JJ.A.

Date of Judgment: 9th November 1984

_________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

_________________________

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.:

1. We now record our reasons for allowing the applications of the 5th and 6th Defendants for leave to appeal against their sentences of three years' imprisonment. Their applications for leave to appeal against conviction on charges of burglary were dismissed.

2. This was a case arising out of what have come to be known as "the Kowloon taxi riots" and the offences alleged were in effect offences of looting. That is enough to show that the case was a very serious one and that substantial custodial sentences were almost inevitable. Nevertheless, the 5th Defendant was at the material date between the ages of 16 and 21 years and it was mandatory that, before passing sentence of imprisonment, the judge should be satisfied that no other method of dealing with him was appropriate and, for that purpose, obtain reports as to his character and physical and mental condition: s. 109A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. The judge neither expressed himself to be so satisfied nor asked for reports. We obtained such reports on both the 5th and the 6th Defendant, the latter being only a few months older, and we also personally consulted the Probation. Officers. In the light of the information then available counsel persuaded us that a different sentence would be appropriate in both cases.

3. The Applicants had been in custody for about eight months, which (on the assumption that they had been of good behaviour) meant that they had already served the equivalent of a sentence of one year's imprisonment. Having regard to all the circumstances and in particular to the indication in the reports that these young men needed guidance to enable them to amend their ways, we thought that the public interest would best be served by substituting for the sentences passed by the District Judge sentences of two years' imprisonment suspended for three years on conditions. Those conditions were imposed by virtue of power conferred by s. 109B(3)(a) and were that each of the Applicants during the period of suspension be under the supervision of a probation officer and comply with the reasonable requirements of such probation officer, in particular that he should live and work at places to be approved by the probation officer.

9th November 1984

Representation: