Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Training centre sentence

  • 20 Feb 2006

    HKSAR v. WAN KA KIT

    Citation
    HKSAR v. WAN KA KIT
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC298/2005

    Leave to appeal was granted but, treating the hearing as the appeal, the Court dismissed the appeal: although the sentencing judge erred in relying on untested co-defendants' post-trial remarks to label the applicant 'mastermind', the aggregate of factors—breach of trust, contested plea, role in taking and disposing of stolen property, limited remorse and rehabilitative prospects—justified the training centre order and community service was inappropriate for this serious burglary in the circumstances.

  • 11 Dec 1998

    HKSAR v. TSE CHI KEUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. TSE CHI KEUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA958/1998

    The appeal was dismissed because the Court concluded that retention in the training centre, given the appellant's needs, the Training Centre and Correctional Services reports showing progress under discipline and remedial care, and the uncertainty of family and school environment, was more likely to secure rehabilitation than probation and hostel supervision.

  • 14 Jan 1993

    THE QUEEN v. SO LAI SHAN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. SO LAI SHAN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA747/1992

    The magistrate's finding that the plea was genuine and voluntary was entitled to stand because the police officer was available for cross-examination and the magistrate permissibly weighed the mother and daughter's evidence against the context and existing material; therefore the application to set aside the plea was correctly refused. On sentence, the training centre order for So Lai Shan was appropriate and upheld; the sentence for Kong Suet Man was varied to a two-year probation order because of materially improved probation reports and changed family circumstances.

  • 4 Apr 1991

    THE QUEEN v. TSANG SAI MAN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. TSANG SAI MAN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1709/1990

    The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate, guided by pre-sentence reports, properly concluded the appellant was unsuitable for probation or a Detention Centre but suitable for a Training Centre; differences in treatment of co-offenders were justified by their guilty pleas and clear records, and there was no basis for interference with the sentencing discretion exercised.

  • 21 Feb 1991

    THE QUEEN v. CHAN WING YI AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHAN WING YI AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1697/1990

    The appeal is allowed in that the Training Centre sentence is set aside and replaced with a 12 month probation order because the appellant's youth, first offender status, coercion by a boyfriend, plea of guilty/remorse and the welfare needs of her newborn outweigh the reasons for immediate custody in the circumstances of this case.

  • 18 Apr 1972

    LI KAM-CHUNG v. THE QUEEN

    Citation
    LI KAM-CHUNG v. THE QUEEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC157/1972

    Although the magistrate's original decision to commit the 17‑year‑old to a training centre was not wrong in principle, the court exercised its discretion to vary the outcome because of new and exceptional family circumstances (death of father and financial hardship) and the statutory/established rule that a suspended sentence is not available for indecent assault; therefore immediate release on probation for one year was ordered as the appropriate substitute.