Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Training centre orders

Legal area

Court

26 Oct 2022

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. C.C.C. AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1381
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR16/2021

The DATC orders imposed at first instance were manifestly inadequate for the 1st and 3rd respondents given the gang robberies involving violence and weapons and resulting injuries; the Court substituted Training Centre orders for those two respondents after considering subsequent conduct and up-to-date suitability reports; for the 2nd respondent, although the appropriate sentence would have been a Training Centre order, the Court exercised its s.81B discretion not to disturb the DATC sentence because it had already achieved rehabilitation and substituting would be unjust and unnecessarily har…
24 Aug 2017

HKSAR v. LI LEUNG FAI

Citation

HKSAR v. LI LEUNG FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC74/2017

The judge correctly concluded that imprisonment was the only appropriate method of dealing with the applicant for trafficking 9g of cocaine, applied the Lau Tak Ming starting point (just over 4 years 8 months), reduced it modestly for youth to 4 years 6 months, and applied a full one‑third discount for the guilty plea to reach 3 years' imprisonment; there was no arguable error in failing to impose a Training Centre order or in the sentencing arithmetic, so the application for leave to appeal was properly refused.
15 Jan 2015

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HO WAN CHIU

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. HO WAN CHIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR5/2014

No exceptional circumstances justified Training Centre orders for either offender. Given the seriousness and quantities involved, deterrence prevails; starting point set at 6 years imprisonment for each, reduced by one-third for guilty pleas to 4 years, and the Training Centre orders were therefore set aside and substituted with immediate imprisonment of 4 years each.
15 Jan 2015

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAU TSZ TIM

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAU TSZ TIM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR4/2014

Training Centre Orders imposed on Chau and Ho were unduly lenient for serious drug trafficking; no exceptional circumstances justified non-custodial Training Centre Orders; proper starting point was 6 years imprisonment for each, with one-third discount for guilty pleas resulting in 4 years immediate imprisonment for each respondent; orders substituted accordingly.
20 Aug 2004

HKSAR v. TAI MAN YU AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. TAI MAN YU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC164/2004

Given the planning, gratuitous violence, identified leadership by one youth, disposal of incriminating material and the applicants' ages which do not amount to 'extreme youth', a training centre was inappropriate in the community interest and the imposed sentences of five years four months were not manifestly excessive; therefore leave to appeal is dismissed.
8 Jan 2001

WONG CHUN CHEONG v. HKSAR

Citation

WONG CHUN CHEONG v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC9/2000

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.
29 May 1997

R. v. WONG KIM MING

Citation

R. v. WONG KIM MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA449/1997

The magistrate properly considered all reports and alternatives, rejected probation as unsuitable on the appellant's background and the Young Offenders Panel assessments, and lawfully exercised discretion to impose detention in a training centre; any misstatement by defence counsel as to sentencing ranges did not render the sentence wrong in principle and the appellate court will not disturb the sentence, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
31 Jan 1997

R v. KONG KIN MAN

Citation

R v. KONG KIN MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR13/1996

The District Judge's detention centre order was ultra vires because s4(4) required prior notification by the Commissioner as to suitability and availability; given the respondent's exceptional circumstances and supportive reports the Court quashed the unlawful order and lawfully substituted an order for detention in a training centre.
19 Oct 1995

R. v. HUI CHI WAI

Citation

R. v. HUI CHI WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC353/1995

The Court held the trial judge properly considered the reports and the possibility of a training centre order and reasonably rejected it as inappropriate for a 20‑year‑old after trial trafficking a large quantity of heroin; the judge reduced the sentence below the Lau Tak‑ming guideline to reflect youth and a clear record, and therefore the sentence was not wrong in principle and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
22 Nov 1994

LAU YAT PANG and Another v. R.

Citation

LAU YAT PANG and Another v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC260/1994

Convictions were upheld because the judge properly identified discrepancies and cautioned the jury about accomplice evidence and the jury were entitled to accept the Crown evidence; however the custodial sentences were inappropriate for these juvenile offenders where the victim was of about the same age and, given the circumstances, detention in a training centre was the proper disposition, so the Court quashed the imprisonment sentences and ordered training centre detention.