HKSAR v. CHOY HUNG LUNG

CACC000227/1997

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No. 227
(Criminal)

________________

BETWEEN
	HKSAR
	AND
	CHOY HUNG-LUNG

________________

 

Coram: Hon. Power, V.-P. and Mayo, J.A.

Date of hearing: 25 July 1997

Date of judgment: 25 July 1997

 

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

 

Power, V.-P.(giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant faced four charges and he was convicted on each of them. They involved counterfeit video compact discs, music discs, CD-Roms and 190 obscene video compact discs. Large numbers were involved. There were 7,085 video compact discs of films, (Charge 1), about 8,000 video and music discs (Charge 2) and 388 CD-ROMs (Charge 3). This was his fourth offence for this type of illegal activity. He was at the time on probation for a similar offence. Judge Whaley, before sentencing, obtained a probation report. The opinion of the probation officer was that the accused would be unable to stay out of trouble in an open setting. The judge also obtained Detention Centre and Training Centre reports which recommended disciplinary training.

2. When sentencing the trial judge was careful to look at all of the circumstances and bore in mind the age and background of the applicant and the fact that he could properly be characterized as a small fish in the illegal counterfeiting business. Having considered all of these matters, he was satisfied that it was proper to make a training centre order.

3. He submits that the training centre order is not one for a fixed term. This is so. A training centre order is for a period in the training centre between six months and three years. After release, there is a period of supervision. The training centre is designed to ensure that young offenders after return to open life under supervision will live useful and lawabiding lives. It is a hard regime meant to bring home to young offenders not only the seriousness of their offences but also the necessity for them to reform themselves upon release. It was, in our view, exactly the appropriate order to make.

4. The application is, therefore, refused.

(N.P. Power)	(Simon Mayo)
Vice-President	Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr. Zersvos (D.P.P.) for the Respondent.

Applicant in person.