HKSAR v. LAM KAM WING
- Citation
- HKSAR v. LAM KAM WING
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 29 January 2003
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment
- Case number
- HCMA978/2002
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 29 January 2003
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment
- Case number
- HCMA978/2002
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Although the offence was serious and the magistrate's finding of triad-related involvement was upheld, the rehabilitation centre order was disproportionate in light of the appellant's age (18), clear record, steady employment, cessation of association with the co-defendant and supportive family; accordingly the appeal was allowed in part and the rehabilitation order was quashed and replaced with an 18-month probation order to better serve rehabilitation interests.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed in part; rehabilitation centre order quashed and substituted by an 18-month probation order.
Orders
- Rehabilitation centre order quashed
- Appellant placed on probation for 18 months with conditions: (1) to live and work at places to be approved by the Probation Officer; (2) to maintain regular contact with the Probation Officer; (3) to report to the Probation Officer if and when instructed to do so
02
Material facts
Parties
HKSAR
Respondent Counsel: Ms Jasmine Ching, GC of the Department of JusticeLAM KAM WING
Appellant Counsel: Mr Rupert Spicer, assigned by DLAAmounts and remedies
- Appellant Age at Offence: 18
- Probation Period Months: 18
- Monthly Salary: HKD 6,500
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appellate Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Appropriateness of a rehabilitation centre order versus probation
- 02
Whether appellant knew or must have known of triad background to the assault
- 03
Whether a Newton enquiry was required
- 04
Weighing of personal mitigation (age, employment, clear record, parental support) against seriousness of offence
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant (through counsel) abandoned the Newton enquiry point but argued the rehabilitation centre order was inappropriate and disproportionate given his age (18), clear record, employment and prospects for rehabilitation and therefore should be substituted with probation.
- Respondent
- The prosecution maintained the sentence was justified because the assault was serious, had a triad background and involved a group attack on a schoolboy, warranting detention in a rehabilitation centre.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Sentencing principles/case law
Sentencing must balance the seriousness of the offence against the offender's prospects for rehabilitation and personal mitigation.
- 02
Magistrate's factual finding and sentencing practice
Knowledge of organised crime (triad) involvement increases the gravity of assault offences and may justify a more severe sentence.
- 03
Sentencing principles/case law
Probation is an available and appropriate alternative to detention where it better serves the offender's rehabilitation and social reintegration.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Although the offence was serious and the magistrate's finding of triad-related involvement was upheld, the rehabilitation centre order was disproportionate in light of the appellant's age (18), clear record, steady employment, cessation of association with the co-defendant and supportive family; accordingly the appeal was allowed in part and the rehabilitation order was quashed and replaced with an 18-month probation order to better serve rehabilitation interests.
Obiter and limits
- No Newton enquiry was necessary as the point was abandoned
- The appellant had left school, ceased association with the former co-defendant and obtained steady employment
- The appellant's parents were present and supportive and would supervise him
Court disposition
Appeal allowed in part; rehabilitation centre order quashed and substituted by an 18-month probation order.
- Rehabilitation centre order quashed
- Appellant placed on probation for 18 months with conditions: (1) to live and work at places to be approved by the Probation Officer; (2) to maintain regular contact with the Probation Officer; (3) to report to the Probation Officer if and when instructed to do so
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 29 January 2003
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 29 January 2003
bjbj HCMA978/2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appellate Jurisdiction) MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.978 OF 2002 (ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 2197 OF 2002) ---------------------
BETWEEN HKSAR Respondent and LAM KAM WING Appellant ---------------------- Before : Hon Nguyen J in Court Date of Hearing : 29 January 2003 Date of Judgment : 29 January 2003 -----------------------
J U D G M E N T -----------------------
AUTONUMOUT The appellant was sentenced by Mr David Dufton, sitting at Eastern Magistracy, to be detained in a rehabilitation center, after the appellant pleaded guilty to the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
AUTONUMOUT The basis of the sentence was that the learned magistrate quite properly took the view that this was unlike an ordinary assault case and took the view that this was a serious case because it had some sort of triad background to it. The other reason was that this was an attack upon a schoolboy by a group of people.
AUTONUMOUT Spicer for the appellant on appeal this morning has quite properly abandoned the argument that there should have been a Newton Enquiry
AUTONUMOUT The facts of the case are quite simply that the victim was asked by the first two defendants to go to a park in Wanchai. Upon arrival at the park, the victim saw the appellant, the 4th defendant and some other males. One of the males asked the victim to join the Wo Hop To Triad Society. The victim declined. The males present including the 4th defendant then punched the victim on his face and kicked him. Later, the appellant joined in and assaulted the victim by punching and kicking him.
AUTONUMOUT Some argument was raised this morning about whether it had been shown by the prosecution that the appellant knew or must have known about the triad background to this assault. I am satisfied that it would be unrealistic to think that the appellant was unaware of what was happening before he joined in the assault on the victim. In my view, therefore, the sentence passed by the learned magistrate was entirely proper and was justified on the facts of the case.
AUTONUMOUT What I have noticed is the fact that the appellant has now left the school where he was attending when he committed the present offence. I am told also that he has now stopped all association with the former 4th defendant who was also sentenced to be detained in the rehabilitation center.
AUTONUMOUT The appellant was admitted to bail pending appeal in October 2002. Since then, he has been working for a shop called the Nutri Store situated at Tai Koo Plaza. This store sells, I am informed, health products. The appellant works from 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. everyday and earns $6,500 a month. In addition, he is a student in an institution called the Australian Training which provides training for people who want to specialize in and becoming physical training instructors. The appellant is now living together with his parents in a Housing Society flat in Lai Tak Estate.
AUTONUMOUT am allowing the appeal and quashing the rehabilitation centre order because I am satisfied that to enable the appellant to carry on with his present employment would be in his best interest. He was aged 18 at the time of the commission of the offence. He had a clear record. This episode, I am sure, has been a good lesson for him. He is the only child of his parents. His parents appear to be very supportive of what he is doing and they are both present in court this morning. I have no doubt that they will supervise his activities more carefully in the future to ensure that he does not stray from the straight and narrow.
AUTONUMOUT The appellant has agreed to be placed on probation. I therefore place the appellant on probation for 18 months with the following conditions : (1) He is to live and work at places to be approved by the Probation Officer. (2) He is to maintain regular contact with his Probation Officer. (3) He is to report to the Probation Officer if and when instructed to do so. So, the appeal is allowed to that extent. (Peter Nguyen) Judge of the Court of First Instance, High Court Ms Jasmine Ching, GC of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR Mr Rupert Spicer, assigned by DLA, for the Appellant
PAGE -
PAGE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V 1udk 1udk
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V &`#$ & 6"
CACV Jeannie MY MokSo ABC.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary
CACV Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.