14 Aug 2007
The appeal is dismissed because the Magistrate properly considered the appellant's background and reports, applied the Wong Chun-cheong criteria, and reasonably concluded that a training centre order was expedient for the appellant's reformation and not manifestly excessive.
10 May 1989
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge's selection of the Training Centre was within the proper exercise of discretion and not shown to be an error in principle or manifestly excessive; family support did not compel a different outcome.
23 Sept 1985
Given the appellant's age, very favourable background and institutional reports and genuine remorse, the appellate court held that a non‑custodial rehabilitative disposition (probation or conditional discharge) was the appropriate sentence rather than detention; the detention order was set aside and the appellant was conditionally discharged under s.36 with a recorded conviction.