TNAG-0555-FCO40-650-Review-of-death-sentence-in-Hong-Kong-1975 — Page 154

- 6-

course of the affray. That may be so. We are not prépared to say

that it was wrong to regard the fact that a murder was committed. Obviously this was a serious affray and as such it has to be

punished more severely than one which is less serious.

Nevertheless

we think that a sentence of four years' imprisonment was unduly

heavy and the sentences of those two Appellants, the first and

the seventh, will be reduced from four years to three years.

The second Appellant has subsequently been convicted

of manslaughter upon another trial and has been sentenced to ten

years' imprisonment. He has indicated to us that he does not

wish to proceed with the present appeal and that he will content

himself with challenging the sentence of ten years' imprisonment

in the subsequent case.

anxiety.

The case of the fifth Appellant has caused us more

He was sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment.

On the face of it, for an offence of this kind, that may well

not appear a heavy sentence. He is, however, aged only 16 and

he has a clear record. There is in the file a report from the probation officer who suggested that the court might even be willing to consider probation in this case. The learned judge,

no doubt for good reason, thought thet probation was not the

answer and that some more stringent disapproval should be

indicated by the sentence passed. However, he did not obtain

any reports of the Appellant's suitability for other forms of

punishment, and we think that this application ought to be

adjourned while we obtain reports from the Commissioner of

Prisons as to the Appellant's suitability for the training

centre or the detention centre.

dismissed.

The appeal of the second Appellant of course stands

17th December 1974.