10 Oct 2003
The appeal was allowed and the Rehabilitation Centre Order substituted with an 18-month Probation Order because the pre-sentence reports, apparent family support and prospects for rehabilitation made custody non-mandatory and probation with conditions was the appropriate disposition in all the circumstances.
4 Sept 1992
The cautioned statements were properly admitted as voluntary and corroborated by the circumstances (discovery of the knife and detailed confession); there was no basis to overturn the trial judge's fact findings or to find the sentence inappropriate, therefore leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence is dismissed.
21 Jun 1990
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application because section 83H(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance excludes cases where the High Court is dealing with the offender while exercising jurisdiction on appeal from a magistrate; therefore the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
11 Jan 1990
Because section 3(1) of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance now requires probation orders to be made after conviction, it is not permissible to dismiss a charge under section 15(1)(a) of the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance and simultaneously place the offender on probation; the learned magistrate therefore erred and the case must be remitted for disposition consistent with that statutory requirement.
12 Jun 1986
It is beyond a magistrate's power to impose as a condition of a probation order that a probation officer provide progress reports to the court; when discharging a probation order for breach and imposing a training centre order the statutory procedure must be followed and the breach proved to the magistrate's satisfaction either by admission or by evidence with opportunity to cross-examine; where these procedures were not followed the Training Centre Order was unlawful and must be quashed.
9 May 1983
The Court of Appeal, when exercising the statutory power under section 83I(3) to quash and substitute a sentence on appeal, has the same power as the court below to make, amend or discharge a probation order it previously imposed and may deal with a probationer brought before it by warrant issued by the Court of Appeal; accordingly the probation order made on 21 December 1981 could be revoked and the original sentence reinstated.
10 Sept 1981
The Court allowed the appeals of the first and third appellants, setting aside four‑year prison sentences and substituting Training Centre Orders because they were young, had minimal records and reporting officers recommended training; the trial judge erred by refusing training centre orders solely because he could not specify a minimum detention period. The appeal of the second appellant was dismissed because of his prior record, offending while on bail and the operation of section 5(1) of the Training Centre Ordinance preventing concurrency.
4 May 1978
Sections 6(4) and 6(5) of Cap.298 operate to require magistrates to proceed with sentencing for a further offence despite an existing higher court probation order, producing the anomalous result of concurrent custodial sentences and probation; the appropriate remedy is legislative amendment rather than further judicial adjustment.