DCCC1107/2010 HKSAR v. YU KA FAI AND ANOTHER - LawHero
DCCC1107/2010
區域法院（刑事）H H Judge Anthea Pang11/4/2011
DCCC1107/2010
A A
DCCC1107/2010
B B
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
C C
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1107 OF 2010
D D
---------------------------
E E
HKSAR
F F
v.
G G
Yu Ka-fai (D1)
H Yu Ka-leong (D2) H
---------------------------
I I
Before: H H Judge Anthea Pang
J Date: 12 April 2011 at 11.43 am J
Present: Ms Chyvette Ip, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
K Mr Edward Fan, instructed by Messrs Ho & Ip, assigned by the K
Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st Defendant
L Mr Patrick Szeto, instructed by Messrs LCP, assigned by the L
Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd Defendant
M Offence: (1) Attempted robbery (企圖搶劫罪) M
(2) Claiming to be a member of a triad society (聲稱是三合會社團的
N 成員) N
O ------------------------------- O
P Reasons for Sentence P
Q ------------------------------- Q
R The Charges R
S 1. The 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant are brothers. Both were S
convicted after trial of one charge of attempted robbery, contrary to section
T T
U U
1 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, and section 159G of the Crimes
B Ordinance, Cap. 200. B
C C
2. The 2nd Defendant, the elder brother, in addition, was convicted of one
D charge of “claiming to be a member of a triad society”, contrary to section D
20(2) of the Societies Ordinance, Cap. 151.
E E
F The Evidence Adduced F
G G
3. I have detailed the events relating to these charges when I gave my verdict.
H In the circumstances, I am not going to repeat all of those here. H
I I
4. Briefly, on 6 May 2010, when PW1, a boy aged around 14 at the time, was
J returning home from school, he met the 1st Defendant and the 2nd J
Defendant in a park. PW1 came to know the 1st Defendant when he
K K
studied Form 1 and he had also met the 2nd Defendant on 3 previous
L L
occasions.
M M
5. While they were in the park, both the 1st Defendant and the 2nd
N N
Defendant walked up to PW1. The 1st Defendant then took out a knife
O which, according to PW1’s description, should be a flick knife. The 1st O
Defendant pointed it at the central part of PW1’s abdomen, and asked PW1
P P
to give him HK$50. PW1 told the 1st Defendant that he would not give
Q him the money. The 1st Defendant said to PW1 that if he did not, he would Q
R
die. Then, the 2nd Defendant walked up to PW1 and bumped PW1 with R
his chest. The 2nd Defendant said to PW1 that he was of Shui Fong triad
S S
society. The 2nd Defendant also asked PW1 whom he followed. Then, the
T 2nd Defendant reached his hand into PW1’s trousers pocket, trying to take T
U U
2 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
PW1’s wallet. These formed the subject matters of the two charges
B mentioned above. B
C C
6. Later, PW1 managed to escape from the Defendants. He then went to the
D lobby of Oi Yee House, which was a building nearby. The 1st Defendant D
gave chase. When PW1 was inside the lobby of Oi Yee House, he tried to
E E
seek assistance from the security guard. However, the guard was talking
F F
on the phone at that time and did not seem to have paid attention to PW1.
G At that juncture, the 1st Defendant left. These were captured by the CCTV G
cameras installed at Oi Yee House, the relevant footages of which were
H H
produced at trial.
I I
7. Subsequently, PW1 went to an elderly home next to Oi Yee House. The 1st
J J
Defendant then re-appeared but was told off by the staff of the elderly
K K
home. With the money given by the staff, PW1 went home by taxi.
L L
8. The following day when PW1 returned to school, he related the matter to
M M
the school’s discipline master. A report was then made to the police which
N led to the arrest of the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant. N
O O
The Defendants’ Background
P P
9. The 1st Defendant is now aged 15½ and the 2nd Defendant is aged 17½. At
Q the time of the offences, the 1st Defendant was aged 14½ while the 2nd Q
R
Defendant was aged 16 years and 8 months. In view of the Defendants’ R
young age, I adjourned sentence to today in order to obtain a background
S S
report and a Training Centre Report on each of them.
T T
U U
3 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
10. It was disclosed in the background report that the 1st Defendant has been
B dealt with under the Superintendent Discretionary Scheme twice, one in B
respect of criminal damage/AOABH in 2006 and another in respect of
C C
shoplifting in 2009. The 2nd Defendant has a clear record.
D D
11. The Defendants’ father is a delivery worker but he has been on sick leave
E E
since December 2010 owing to an injury said to have been sustained at
F F
work. It was stated in the background report that, “His manager, David, was
G still paying 80% wage to him monthly despite nil symptom of his mobility G
problem and nil medical prescription.”
H H
I 12. Owing to the partial payments received by the Defendants’ father, it was I
said that the family is only able to get a limited amount of assistance from
J J
the Social Welfare Department. The Probation Officer noted that for April
K K
2011, the amount of assistance given to the family was just a sum of
L HK$84.90. Worse still, the Defendants’ mother complained to the case L
worker that the father had an extra-marital affair and he provided very
M M
little to support the family.
N N
13. Other than the financial and marital problems, it was also disclosed in the
O O
report that there was an incident of domestic violence in which the
P P
Defendants’ mother was assaulted by their father. The 2nd Defendant was
Q asked by the father to cover it up for him. The 1st Defendant, however, Q
told the police what happened.
R R
S 14. Given the Defendants’ family circumstances, it is not surprising that when S
the 1st Defendant’s poor school attendance was brought to the attention of
T T
his parents with warning letters issued by the Secretary of Education, an
U U
4 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
indifferent attitude was adopted. Eventually, the 1st Defendant left school
B in January 2010 and attended the Youth Employment Assistance B
Programme organized by an NGO in October last year. However, owing to
C C
his small build and young age, the 1st Defendant has not managed to get
D D
any open employment.
E E
15. Insofar as the 2nd Defendant is concerned, he was found to be functioning
F F
within the range of Mild Grade Mental Handicap in 2000 and he was then
G arranged to study in a special school in 2004. However, his school G
attendance was also poor. He had missed 71.5 and 90.5 school days for the
H H
two semesters of the year 2007/2008. Finally, the 2nd Defendant quitted
I I
school in the summer of 2008. Again, the parents adopted an indifferent
J attitude towards the 2nd Defendant’s quitting school. J
K K
16. After ceasing education, both Defendants then started hanging around in
L the streets and their parents did not seem to be able to provide any useful L
assistance or guidance to them.
M M
N 17. During the interviews the Defendants had with the Probation Officer, both N
denied having committed any offence. They blamed PW1 for having
O O
fabricated the allegations against them in order to take revenge on them.
P P
The Training Centre Reports
Q Q
R
18. In the concluding paragraph of the Training Centre Report prepared in R
respect of the 1st Defendant, it was stated that,
S S
”… His parents were lenient in child discipline and failed to render
T T
effective supervision during defendant’s upbringing. … Lacking
U U
5 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
interest in school, defendant quitted school without completing his
B repeated Form One in January 2010. Afterwards, defendant became B
idle and liked loitering in his home vicinity with his brother Yu Ka-
C C
leong (co-defendant of the present offence). … In view of his weak
D self-control ability and weak law-abiding concept, a longer period of D
disciplinary training coupled with statutory supervision was
E E
considered beneficial to his reformation.”
F F
19. A similar conclusion was found in the report prepared in respect of the
G G
2nd Defendant. The Officer, however, further commented that,
H H
“… His association with his brother Yu Ka-fai (D1) subsequently
I I
landed him into the current offence.”
J J
20. The Officer’s observation is supported by Mr. Szeto who acted for the 2nd
K K
Defendant. Mr. Szeto informed the court that during his encounters with
L the 2nd Defendant, he found him very much emotionally attached to his L
parents and the 1st Defendant. Mr. Szeto also laid emphasis on the fact
M M
that the 2nd Defendant was regarded by the social worker in the special
N N
school as having a fair school performance and could comply with school
O regulations most of the time. It was submitted that, as the 2nd Defendant is O
suffering from a mild grade mental handicap and he might not know what
P P
is best for him, his absence from school was, to a large extent, attributable
Q to the lack of parental supervision as his parents should not have allowed Q
R
him to remain idle at home. R
S 21. In view of the 2nd Defendant’s background and all the relevant S
T circumstances, Mr. Szeto urged the court to adopt the recommendation in T
U U
6 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
the Training Centre Report as reformation of the 2nd Defendant is not only
B beneficial to him, but also to the community. B
C C
Sentencing Considerations
D D
22. As the 1st Defendant is still under the age of 16, he is a “young person” as
E E
defined in the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance, Cap. 226. Section 11(2) of that
F Ordinance stipulates that “No young person shall be sentenced to imprisonment F
if he can be suitably dealt with in any other way.”
G G
H 23. The 2nd Defendant is under the age of 21. The offence of “robbery” is an H
excepted offence in Schedule 3 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.
I I
221, and section 109A is not applicable. However, the offence of
J “attempted robbery” in respect of which the 2nd Defendant was convicted J
K is not stipulated in that Schedule. K
L L
24. In any event, a sentencing court would consider how best it is to deal with
M young defendants, given the nature and circumstances of the offence, the M
interest of the community, and the offenders’ background, etc. I am also
N N
aware that in Wong Chun Cheong v HKSAR (2001) 4 HKCFAR 12, the Court
O of Final Appeal examined the circumstances under which a training centre O
order is to be imposed and what the relevant considerations are.
P P
Q 25. No doubt, robbery is a serious offence and an immediate custodial Q
R
sentence is generally called for. If not because of the age and the R
background of these Defendants, I would have no hesitation in imposing a
S S
term of imprisonment.
T T
U U
7 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
26. In the present case, the attempted robbery committed by the Defendants
B was not of a sophisticated nature. It was committed in board day light and B
the victim was the 1st Defendant’s schoolmate. Such would no doubt
C C
render the identification of the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant
D D
relatively easy. I also note that although a weapon was produced at the
E time of the robbery, such was not of the extreme lethal type. It was a flick E
knife. It should also be noted that although there were the two of them at
F F
the time, not much force, other than the bumping by the 2nd Defendant,
G G
was actually exerted on PW1 by them. In fact, PW1 managed to escape and
H he sustained no injury. At the same time, no property was actually taken H
by the Defendants. All things considered, I would regard this case to fall
I I
within the lower range of attempted robbery offences.
J J
27. Tuning to the Defendants’ background, on the information available, I
K K
have no doubt that both the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant did not
L receive effective parental supervision during their up-bringing. As a result, L
M
they were allowed to hang around in the streets despite their age and M
despite the 2nd Defendant’s mild grade mental handicap. Imposing a term
N N
of imprisonment may serve the purpose of punishing them but it may not
O be the best way to deal with them in view of their lack of supervision in O
the past and in view of their age. In saying this, I am aware that the factor
P P
of young age might pale into insignificance depending on the magnitude
Q Q
or prevalence of the offence. However, as I have mentioned above, this is
R certainly not a case in the worst category. In my view, both Defendants R
require training and discipline to bring them back onto the right track and
S S
to help them become useful members of the community. If they were to be
T left on their own, there would be a high likelihood that they would go T
U down a track which has no return. U
8 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
28. Therefore, in the interest of the community and for crime prevention, I
B agree with the reporting officers that a period of disciplinary training B
coupled with statutory supervision is beneficial to them. Such training and
C C
supervision would not be available if a term of imprisonment were to be
D D
imposed.
E E
The Sentences Imposed
F F
29. After careful consideration, I take the view that a training centre order is
G G
the most appropriate method to deal with both the 1st Defendant and the
H 2nd Defendant. Therefore, for the attempted robbery offence, I sentence H
I
both Defendants to Training Centre, and in respect of the Claiming MOTS I
charge, I also sentence the 2nd Defendant to Training Centre. The Training
J J
Centre Order in respect of the 2nd Defendant is of course to run
K concurrently. K
L L
M M
N N
O (Anthea Pang) O
District Judge
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
9 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
DCCC1107/2010
B B
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
C C
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1107 OF 2010
D D
---------------------------
E E
HKSAR
F F
v.
G G
Yu Ka-fai (D1)
H Yu Ka-leong (D2) H
---------------------------
I I
Before: H H Judge Anthea Pang
J Date: 12 April 2011 at 11.43 am J
Present: Ms Chyvette Ip, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
K Mr Edward Fan, instructed by Messrs Ho & Ip, assigned by the K
Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st Defendant
L Mr Patrick Szeto, instructed by Messrs LCP, assigned by the L
Director of Legal Aid, for the 2nd Defendant
M Offence: (1) Attempted robbery (企圖搶劫罪) M
(2) Claiming to be a member of a triad society (聲稱是三合會社團的
N 成員) N
O ------------------------------- O
P Reasons for Sentence P
Q ------------------------------- Q
R The Charges R
S 1. The 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant are brothers. Both were S
convicted after trial of one charge of attempted robbery, contrary to section
T T
U U
1 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
10 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210, and section 159G of the Crimes
B Ordinance, Cap. 200. B
C C
2. The 2nd Defendant, the elder brother, in addition, was convicted of one
D charge of “claiming to be a member of a triad society”, contrary to section D
20(2) of the Societies Ordinance, Cap. 151.
E E
F The Evidence Adduced F
G G
3. I have detailed the events relating to these charges when I gave my verdict.
H In the circumstances, I am not going to repeat all of those here. H
I I
4. Briefly, on 6 May 2010, when PW1, a boy aged around 14 at the time, was
J returning home from school, he met the 1st Defendant and the 2nd J
Defendant in a park. PW1 came to know the 1st Defendant when he
K K
studied Form 1 and he had also met the 2nd Defendant on 3 previous
L L
occasions.
M M
5. While they were in the park, both the 1st Defendant and the 2nd
N N
Defendant walked up to PW1. The 1st Defendant then took out a knife
O which, according to PW1’s description, should be a flick knife. The 1st O
Defendant pointed it at the central part of PW1’s abdomen, and asked PW1
P P
to give him HK$50. PW1 told the 1st Defendant that he would not give
Q him the money. The 1st Defendant said to PW1 that if he did not, he would Q
R
die. Then, the 2nd Defendant walked up to PW1 and bumped PW1 with R
his chest. The 2nd Defendant said to PW1 that he was of Shui Fong triad
S S
society. The 2nd Defendant also asked PW1 whom he followed. Then, the
T 2nd Defendant reached his hand into PW1’s trousers pocket, trying to take T
U U
2 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
PW1’s wallet. These formed the subject matters of the two charges
B mentioned above. B
C C
6. Later, PW1 managed to escape from the Defendants. He then went to the
D lobby of Oi Yee House, which was a building nearby. The 1st Defendant D
gave chase. When PW1 was inside the lobby of Oi Yee House, he tried to
E E
seek assistance from the security guard. However, the guard was talking
F F
on the phone at that time and did not seem to have paid attention to PW1.
G At that juncture, the 1st Defendant left. These were captured by the CCTV G
cameras installed at Oi Yee House, the relevant footages of which were
H H
produced at trial.
I I
7. Subsequently, PW1 went to an elderly home next to Oi Yee House. The 1st
J J
Defendant then re-appeared but was told off by the staff of the elderly
K K
home. With the money given by the staff, PW1 went home by taxi.
L L
8. The following day when PW1 returned to school, he related the matter to
M M
the school’s discipline master. A report was then made to the police which
N led to the arrest of the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant. N
O O
The Defendants’ Background
P P
9. The 1st Defendant is now aged 15½ and the 2nd Defendant is aged 17½. At
Q the time of the offences, the 1st Defendant was aged 14½ while the 2nd Q
R
Defendant was aged 16 years and 8 months. In view of the Defendants’ R
young age, I adjourned sentence to today in order to obtain a background
S S
report and a Training Centre Report on each of them.
T T
U U
3 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
10. It was disclosed in the background report that the 1st Defendant has been
B dealt with under the Superintendent Discretionary Scheme twice, one in B
respect of criminal damage/AOABH in 2006 and another in respect of
C C
shoplifting in 2009. The 2nd Defendant has a clear record.
D D
11. The Defendants’ father is a delivery worker but he has been on sick leave
E E
since December 2010 owing to an injury said to have been sustained at
F F
work. It was stated in the background report that, “His manager, David, was
G still paying 80% wage to him monthly despite nil symptom of his mobility G
problem and nil medical prescription.”
H H
I 12. Owing to the partial payments received by the Defendants’ father, it was I
said that the family is only able to get a limited amount of assistance from
J J
the Social Welfare Department. The Probation Officer noted that for April
K K
2011, the amount of assistance given to the family was just a sum of
L HK$84.90. Worse still, the Defendants’ mother complained to the case L
worker that the father had an extra-marital affair and he provided very
M M
little to support the family.
N N
13. Other than the financial and marital problems, it was also disclosed in the
O O
report that there was an incident of domestic violence in which the
P P
Defendants’ mother was assaulted by their father. The 2nd Defendant was
Q asked by the father to cover it up for him. The 1st Defendant, however, Q
told the police what happened.
R R
S 14. Given the Defendants’ family circumstances, it is not surprising that when S
the 1st Defendant’s poor school attendance was brought to the attention of
T T
his parents with warning letters issued by the Secretary of Education, an
U U
4 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
indifferent attitude was adopted. Eventually, the 1st Defendant left school
B in January 2010 and attended the Youth Employment Assistance B
Programme organized by an NGO in October last year. However, owing to
C C
his small build and young age, the 1st Defendant has not managed to get
D D
any open employment.
E E
15. Insofar as the 2nd Defendant is concerned, he was found to be functioning
F F
within the range of Mild Grade Mental Handicap in 2000 and he was then
G arranged to study in a special school in 2004. However, his school G
attendance was also poor. He had missed 71.5 and 90.5 school days for the
H H
two semesters of the year 2007/2008. Finally, the 2nd Defendant quitted
I I
school in the summer of 2008. Again, the parents adopted an indifferent
J attitude towards the 2nd Defendant’s quitting school. J
K K
16. After ceasing education, both Defendants then started hanging around in
L the streets and their parents did not seem to be able to provide any useful L
assistance or guidance to them.
M M
N 17. During the interviews the Defendants had with the Probation Officer, both N
denied having committed any offence. They blamed PW1 for having
O O
fabricated the allegations against them in order to take revenge on them.
P P
The Training Centre Reports
Q Q
R
18. In the concluding paragraph of the Training Centre Report prepared in R
respect of the 1st Defendant, it was stated that,
S S
”… His parents were lenient in child discipline and failed to render
T T
effective supervision during defendant’s upbringing. … Lacking
U U
5 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
interest in school, defendant quitted school without completing his
B repeated Form One in January 2010. Afterwards, defendant became B
idle and liked loitering in his home vicinity with his brother Yu Ka-
C C
leong (co-defendant of the present offence). … In view of his weak
D self-control ability and weak law-abiding concept, a longer period of D
disciplinary training coupled with statutory supervision was
E E
considered beneficial to his reformation.”
F F
19. A similar conclusion was found in the report prepared in respect of the
G G
2nd Defendant. The Officer, however, further commented that,
H H
“… His association with his brother Yu Ka-fai (D1) subsequently
I I
landed him into the current offence.”
J J
20. The Officer’s observation is supported by Mr. Szeto who acted for the 2nd
K K
Defendant. Mr. Szeto informed the court that during his encounters with
L the 2nd Defendant, he found him very much emotionally attached to his L
parents and the 1st Defendant. Mr. Szeto also laid emphasis on the fact
M M
that the 2nd Defendant was regarded by the social worker in the special
N N
school as having a fair school performance and could comply with school
O regulations most of the time. It was submitted that, as the 2nd Defendant is O
suffering from a mild grade mental handicap and he might not know what
P P
is best for him, his absence from school was, to a large extent, attributable
Q to the lack of parental supervision as his parents should not have allowed Q
R
him to remain idle at home. R
S 21. In view of the 2nd Defendant’s background and all the relevant S
T circumstances, Mr. Szeto urged the court to adopt the recommendation in T
U U
6 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
the Training Centre Report as reformation of the 2nd Defendant is not only
B beneficial to him, but also to the community. B
C C
Sentencing Considerations
D D
22. As the 1st Defendant is still under the age of 16, he is a “young person” as
E E
defined in the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance, Cap. 226. Section 11(2) of that
F Ordinance stipulates that “No young person shall be sentenced to imprisonment F
if he can be suitably dealt with in any other way.”
G G
H 23. The 2nd Defendant is under the age of 21. The offence of “robbery” is an H
excepted offence in Schedule 3 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.
I I
221, and section 109A is not applicable. However, the offence of
J “attempted robbery” in respect of which the 2nd Defendant was convicted J
K is not stipulated in that Schedule. K
L L
24. In any event, a sentencing court would consider how best it is to deal with
M young defendants, given the nature and circumstances of the offence, the M
interest of the community, and the offenders’ background, etc. I am also
N N
aware that in Wong Chun Cheong v HKSAR (2001) 4 HKCFAR 12, the Court
O of Final Appeal examined the circumstances under which a training centre O
order is to be imposed and what the relevant considerations are.
P P
Q 25. No doubt, robbery is a serious offence and an immediate custodial Q
R
sentence is generally called for. If not because of the age and the R
background of these Defendants, I would have no hesitation in imposing a
S S
term of imprisonment.
T T
U U
7 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
26. In the present case, the attempted robbery committed by the Defendants
B was not of a sophisticated nature. It was committed in board day light and B
the victim was the 1st Defendant’s schoolmate. Such would no doubt
C C
render the identification of the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant
D D
relatively easy. I also note that although a weapon was produced at the
E time of the robbery, such was not of the extreme lethal type. It was a flick E
knife. It should also be noted that although there were the two of them at
F F
the time, not much force, other than the bumping by the 2nd Defendant,
G G
was actually exerted on PW1 by them. In fact, PW1 managed to escape and
H he sustained no injury. At the same time, no property was actually taken H
by the Defendants. All things considered, I would regard this case to fall
I I
within the lower range of attempted robbery offences.
J J
27. Tuning to the Defendants’ background, on the information available, I
K K
have no doubt that both the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant did not
L receive effective parental supervision during their up-bringing. As a result, L
M
they were allowed to hang around in the streets despite their age and M
despite the 2nd Defendant’s mild grade mental handicap. Imposing a term
N N
of imprisonment may serve the purpose of punishing them but it may not
O be the best way to deal with them in view of their lack of supervision in O
the past and in view of their age. In saying this, I am aware that the factor
P P
of young age might pale into insignificance depending on the magnitude
Q Q
or prevalence of the offence. However, as I have mentioned above, this is
R certainly not a case in the worst category. In my view, both Defendants R
require training and discipline to bring them back onto the right track and
S S
to help them become useful members of the community. If they were to be
T left on their own, there would be a high likelihood that they would go T
U down a track which has no return. U
8 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V
A A
28. Therefore, in the interest of the community and for crime prevention, I
B agree with the reporting officers that a period of disciplinary training B
coupled with statutory supervision is beneficial to them. Such training and
C C
supervision would not be available if a term of imprisonment were to be
D D
imposed.
E E
The Sentences Imposed
F F
29. After careful consideration, I take the view that a training centre order is
G G
the most appropriate method to deal with both the 1st Defendant and the
H 2nd Defendant. Therefore, for the attempted robbery offence, I sentence H
I
both Defendants to Training Centre, and in respect of the Claiming MOTS I
charge, I also sentence the 2nd Defendant to Training Centre. The Training
J J
Centre Order in respect of the 2nd Defendant is of course to run
K concurrently. K
L L
M M
N N
O (Anthea Pang) O
District Judge
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
9 DCCC1107/2010/Sentence
V V