17 Oct 2012
The appeal was dismissed because the magistrate properly exercised sentencing discretion in ordering DATC: the appellant was drug dependent and suitable for DATC, rehabilitation was a dominant objective, prior DATC failures were not determinative, and custody already served did not render the DATC order double punishment.
8 Jan 2001
Section 4(1) of the Training Centres Ordinance requires the court to consider community interest, the offender's character and previous conduct and the circumstances of the offence; on that construction training centre detention is not appropriate for a trivial offence that would not otherwise call for custody, and the magistrate's order was disproportionate and must be set aside and substituted with a fine in the present case.
4 Jun 1998
The Magistrate did not err in law or principle by imposing a Training Centre order; given the appellant's age, poor record, lack of insight and prior unsuccessful community and DATC disposals, the realistic alternatives were imprisonment or a Training Centre and the latter was an appropriate and proportionate sentence, so the appeal is dismissed.
20 Jun 1984
Although the trial Judge could prioritize rehabilitation under s.109A at the time, the conspiracy to kidnap was sufficiently grave, the respondent showed little remorse and the Detention Centre order was manifestly too lenient; the Court allowed the review, set aside the Detention Centre order and substituted an order under the Training Centre Ordinance.