WONG SAI LOK v. THE QUEEN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 85 OF 1973

—————–

BETWEEN
WONG Sai-lok Appellant
and
THE QUEEN Respondent

—————–

Coram: Leonard J. in court

Date: 21st February 1973

—————————–

JUDGMENT

—————————–

1. This appellant in this case is a young man of 17 who pleaded guilty in the court below to assault occasioning actual bodily harm.The facts to which he admitted were that at about 6.45 p.m. on the 3rd of December the victim, a young man of 19 years, was on his way home from work. Outside block 15, Chai Wan Resettlement Area, thisappellant and another approached him, dragged him into a playground where five people including this appellant gave him a viciousbeating up, so vicious that he had to be sent to Tang Shiu Kin Hospital for medical treatment. There he was founded to be sufferingfrom multiple contusions, abrasions and lacerations.

2. The learned magistrate on hearing that the appellant had a clear record called for a Probation Report and a Training Centre Reportand also a Detention Centre Report. He gave consideration to these reports and notwithstanding the plea of guilty of the appellantand his previously clear record, the learned magistrate decided that the best thing to do both for the future of the appellant andin order to deter others from crimes similar to this was to send him to a Training Centre. It is to be noted that neither the reportfrom the Training Centre nor the Probation Officer’s report was favourable to the appellant. The learned magistrate referred tothe Probation Officer’s observation that the appellant was possibly on the verge of more serious crime and to that of the Commissionerof Prisons that the appellant needed a fairly long period of institutional training in a Training Centre. The Commissioner of Prisonsreported that he was not suitable for a Detention Centre. It is clear from the record that the sentence imposed on this young manreceived that most careful consideration from the learned magistrate, from the Probation Officer and from the Commissioner of Prisons.

3. I see no reason whatsover for interference with this sentence and this appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(P.F.X. Leonard)
Puisne Judge

Appellant in person.

Mr. Corrigan, S.C.C. for Crown/Respondent.