IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 372 OF 1999
(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 405/1999)
Coram: Hon. Stuart-Moore, V.-P. and Mayo, J.A. in Court
Date of hearing: 22 September 1999
Date of delivery of judgment: 22 September 1999
J U D G M E N T
Mayo J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):
1. The Applicant pleaded guilty to one count of attempted burglary and one count of the substantive offence. He appeared before HerHonour Judge Toh in the District Court and was sentenced to be detained in a Training Centre. He now seeks leave to appeal againstthis sentence.
2. The facts were quite straight forward. On the first offence a neighbour made a report to the police that a man was acting suspiciouslyin the early hours of the morning at Tak Lok House, Tak Tin Estate. Police officers arrived at the scene and swept the area. Theyfound the Applicant who had in his possession a pair of scissors, a pair of gloves and a torch. He admitted that his possession ofthese articles was to facilitate an attempt to burgle premises. His attempt to enter premises had been unavailing. He also admittedthat his attempt some days earlier had been successful and that he had stolen the items referred to in the second charge. The ownerof the goods had subsequently identified them.
3. The Applicant was aged 20 at the time of the offences and had a previous clear record. The Judge therefore called for Training andDetention Centre Reports.
4. What emerges from these reports is that the Applicant was an undisciplined and somewhat feckless youth who had left school at theage of 15 and had had a very chequered history of employment.
5. On a personal basis he had impregnated his girlfriend who had given birth to a daughter. He had subsequently married the girl butas she was from the Mainland, she was unable to look after the baby. The Applicant’s parents have been looking after the baby.
6. The Applicant himself complains that if he was to remain in a Training Centre, he will be unable to contribute towards the familyfinances. This is not a good reason to quash the Training Centre order.
7. In fact the disciplined regime of a Training Centre is exactly what this young man requires.
8. The application is without merit and is dismissed.
Ms Winnie Ho, S.G.C. (D.P.P.) for Respondent
Fung Sun-lok, Applicant in person