26 Feb 1975
Given the minor prior record, the court held that the police supervision order and the sentence for breach of bond were inappropriate and quashed them, and ordered the two-month sentence for the prior unlawful possession to run concurrently with the six-month sentence for the present theft offence, thereby reducing total imprisonment to six months.
6 Feb 1975
Magistrate failed to demonstrate consideration of s.109A CPO in sentencing a 16‑year‑old; given probation and prison reports recommending institutional training and that the offences, though serious, arose from the same act, the appropriate disposal is detention in a training centre under s.4 Training Centre Ordinance rather than the imposed 18 months' imprisonment with a separate police supervision order; appeal allowed to substitute training centre detention.
22 Jan 1975
A police supervision order should not be added to an order of detention in a Detention Centre where the convicted person is not shown to be peculiarly liable to further offending (for example by repeated convictions) and where police supervision was made without police involvement; the magistrate erred in principle in making such an order in this case and the police supervision element is set aside.
11 Sept 1973
The court reduced the first-charge sentences from five to four years for each appellant and reduced the second-charge sentences for appellants 1, 2 and 4 from three to one year to reflect differing culpability, ordered the sentences to be served consecutively and removed the two-year police supervision orders for the first and third appellants because they were first offenders with clear records.
18 Mar 1970
Given the mental health report indicating a real possibility that Police supervision might cause undue anxiety and impede rehabilitation, the court held that the ancillary order for Police supervision was inappropriate and quashed it; the custodial sentence of four years was maintained and time spent in custody pending the appeal was ordered to count towards that sentence.
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The supervision order was rescinded because the police had not applied for it and were not pressing it; the custodial sentences remain unchanged and continue to run concurrently.