LAU HIN-KEUNG v. THE QUEEN

CACC000508/1980

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 1980.

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

BETWEEN
	LAU Hin-keung	Appellant
	AND
	THE QUEEN	Respondent

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

Coram: Hon. LIU, J. in Court.

Date of Judgment: 17 July 1980

 

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

JUDGMENT

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

 

1. I need not call upon counsel for the Crown. You were charged, together with a 16 years' old boy, with the offence of burglary. Many items were taken. Not all were retrieved. Principally on account of your age and your disposition before the learned magistrate, you were sent to a Training Centre whilst your co-defendant, the 2nd defendant, the 16 years' old boy, was given probation.

2. The learned magistrate took the view that you showed little remorse. In addition to his observation, he cited an incident in court in which you were said to have told the learned magistrate that you surrendered yourself to the police. In the admitted Summary of Facts, it was stated that you and your co-accused were arrested some sixteen days after the offence on information received. You have now clarified the matter before me : What you meant and maintain today is that you offered no resistence at the time of your arrest outside the cinema. A misunderstanding could have led to an error in intepretation, and therefore it may well be the case that the learned magistrate formed a wrong impression of you from the statement you made to the court. It is not entirely without doubt, therefore, that the learned magistrate might not be erroneous in his conclusion that you were not remorseful. You also claim to be the police informer who led to the arrest of yourself and the 2nd defendant, your co-accused. For these reasons, you feel aggrieved by the disparity in the sentence given to you and that dealt out to your co-defendant.

3. It is unusual to put a burglar on probation. The young age of your co-defendant must have influenced the learned magistrate in the court below. Be that as it may, a lenient penalty for a co-accused does not provide, by itself, justification for reducing what I would consider a proper sentence for even a remorseful and cooperative defendant as in your case. The criterion is not that your co-defendant was punished less but that you were not punished more.

4. In my view, all false sense of grievance may be removed by the step that I propose to take. I propose to inform the Commissioner of Prisons that you do seem to feel remorseful and that you claim to be a police informer in this case. The duration of detention in the Training Centre after an initial period is in the discretion of the authority, and you can rest assured that these facts that you have brought to my notice will not be overlooked. I should emphasise again that the Training Centre sentence given to you by the learned magistrate cannot, in any way, be said to be manifestly excessive.

5. In the circumstances, your application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed. The sentence of the learned magistrate is affirmed, and I further order that the Commissioner of Prisons be accordingly informed and that a copy of the reasons I have given be sent to the Commissioner of Prisons in due course.

	( B. LIU )
	Judge of the High Court

 

Representation:

 

 

(1) (1979) C.A.R. 291.