Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Detention in a training centre

Legal area

Court

1 Mar 2005

HKSAR v. CHAN SIN TING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN SIN TING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA66/2005

The magistrate considered extensive reports and the Young Offenders Assessment Panel recommendation, concluded that open placement and probation were unsuitable and that the Training Centre was the only viable non‑custodial structured option to protect the community and attempt rehabilitation, applied the statutory approach under s.4(1) and relevant authority, and therefore the sentence was appropriate and upheld.
9 Jan 2001

HKSAR v. FUNG HIU CHONG

Citation

HKSAR v. FUNG HIU CHONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC200/2000

Given the applicant's offences and wayward lifestyle, the absence of feasible alternatives (probation impractical due to youth and lack of parental support, imprisonment opposed by applicant and not serving purpose), and the fact that separation of mother and baby had already occurred with the baby in residential care, the court held that detention in a training centre remained the most appropriate sentence and dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
14 May 1999

HKSAR v. LAM HON PING

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM HON PING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA296/1999

The Court held that, on the facts, the sentencing magistrate's order for detention in a Training Centre was not too severe and the sentence was appropriate; therefore the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
31 Jul 1996

TSANG KIT YEE v. R.

Citation

TSANG KIT YEE v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC189/1996

Given the gravity of the offence, the negative probation recommendation and statutory sentencing options, the judge's sentence of detention in a training centre was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive; the application for leave to appeal is refused.
14 Mar 1977

LI TIN-SANG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LI TIN-SANG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC92/1977

The magistrate's sentence was wrong in principle because the damage was trivial and resulted from unusual circumstances without premeditation or threats; prior convictions cannot override the need to sentence proportionately, therefore the detention sentence was quashed and substituted to permit the appellant's immediate release.
9 Jun 1975

HUNG CHOR-MING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

HUNG CHOR-MING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC448/1975

The appeal was allowed in part because, on consideration of the girl's apparent maturity and pregnancy, the wishes of the girl and both families that marriage be contemplated, the appellant's youth and prior record, and the likelihood that the magistrate would have sentenced differently had he seen the girl, the appropriate sentence is eighteen months' imprisonment suspended for two years substituted for detention in a training centre.
6 Nov 1974

CHEUNG SAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHEUNG SAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC863/1974

The appeal was allowed because material not before the magistrate (passports and UK entry permits) showed that continued detention would create substantial collateral hardship by preventing the family's emigration; accordingly the original detention sentence was set aside and substituted with a suspended custodial sentence appropriate to the offence and circumstances.
4 Jun 1971

LI CHI-MING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LI CHI-MING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC279/1971

It is wrong to impose corporal punishment in conjunction with detention in a training centre; s.4 of the Training Centres Ordinance indicates training centre detention is in lieu of other sentences and caning undermines the reformative purpose, therefore the caning was quashed and substituted with detention in a training centre.