THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG WING KEUNG AND OTHERS

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG WING KEUNG AND OTHERS

Appeal allowed and training centre sentences substituted with 12 months probation because the offences were at the lowest end of the robbery scale with no weapons or injury, reports and family support indicated a real prospect of reformation without further custodial detention, and the magistrate's reasons were not sufficiently compelling to require a training centre under s.4(1).

Citation
THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG WING KEUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
Respondent: The Queen; 1st Appellant: Cheung Wing-keung; 2nd Appellant: Siu Ka-kit; 3rd Appellant: Siu Leong-kwan
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 February 1990
Case Number
HCMA103/1990
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentencing / Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part; training centre sentences substituted with probation.
Legal Topics
Robbery, Probation, Custodial Vs Non Custodial Sentencing, Training Centre Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Sentencing Juvenile Justice Robbery Probation Custodial Vs Non Custodial Sentencing Training Centre Ordinance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Respondent

Cheung Wing-keung

1st Appellant

Siu Ka-kit

2nd Appellant

Siu Leong-kwan

3rd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentencing / Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether detention in a Training Centre was appropriate in the circumstances
  2. 2 Whether non-custodial probation could achieve reformation
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate's exercise of discretion under s.4(1) was justified

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed and training centre sentences substituted with 12 months probation because the offences were at the lowest end of the robbery scale with no weapons or injury, reports and family support indicated a real prospect of reformation without further custodial detention, and the magistrate's reasons were not sufficiently compelling to require a training centre under s.4(1).

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part; training centre sentences substituted with probation.

Orders

  • Appeals allowed and training centre sentences set aside and substituted with a term of 12 months probation each
  • Appellants to work and reside as directed by the probation officer