17 Aug 1970
Given the favourable probation report, the appellant's employment, lack of previous offending and remorse, the magistrate's order committing him to a training centre was an improper exercise of discretion; appeal allowed, detention order set aside, conviction recorded and appellant unconditionally discharged under section 36 of the Magistrates Ordinance.
25 Feb 1970
The appellate court held there was ample evidence to support the conviction based on possession of stolen property corroborated by witnesses, but the imposed sentence of 12 months imprisonment was manifestly excessive for a first offender; accordingly the sentence was quashed and substituted with a conditional discharge on entering into a recognisance to leave the Colony and not return for two years, a power properly exercised at common law as supported by Flaherty and James Ayu.
2 Feb 1970
The court reduced the 12 month sentence for larceny to six months as excessive on the facts, but upheld the two 12 month sentences for breaches of the Police Supervision Order because the Order remained in force under s5(3) and the appellant had repeatedly breached supervision despite prior sentences; result: total imprisonment of eighteen months.
15 Sept 1969
The sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive in light of the appellant's youth, first‑offender status, mitigating circumstances (panic after losing funds), availability of supervision/employment with his uncle and three months already served; therefore the appropriate course was to set aside the custodial sentence and substitute a two‑year probation order under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance.
28 Apr 1969
The appeal was allowed to the extent of reducing the first appellant's sentence on the first charge from 24 months to 20 months because the magistrate failed to give adequate reasons to justify the 4‑month harsher sentence and the record did not support that disparity; all other sentences were upheld.
21 Mar 1969
The appeal was allowed and the sentences of imprisonment were substituted by an 18‑month probation order with specified residential and employment conditions and an £800 surety because the court was persuaded, on probation officer information and the uncle's willingness to assist, that probation offered a real prospect of rehabilitation while protecting the public through conditions and surety.
17 Dec 1968
Because the magistrate did not give sufficient weight to the appellant's prior confession to an unreported offence (a strongly mitigating circumstance), the court substituted three months' imprisonment for the nine months on the second count and ordered that the two sentences run concurrently, resulting in a total detention of six months.
12 Dec 1968
The guilty plea and admitted facts were credible; the allegation of police inducement was rejected; given the appellant's repeated convictions and incorrigibility and the preventive purpose of the sentence, the magistrate's sentence of 18 months was appropriate and the appeal was dismissed.
12 Dec 1968
Given the appellant's extensive prior record and the nature of the offences (theft and damage/removal of playground equipment), the sentences of six months and nine months' imprisonment to run concurrently were not unreasonable; appeal dismissed.
4 Dec 1968
The supervision order was rescinded because the police had not applied for it and were not pressing it; the custodial sentences remain unchanged and continue to run concurrently.