Page 172 of 241
324
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
I do not think that any member of the public would be deterred from committing violent robbery by the threat of being gaoled for one month or merely put on probation. Yet in a Kowloon case a man found guilty of robbery on 3 separate occasions was sentenced to only one month's imprisonment for each offence and in a New Territories case a youth found guilty of 2 counts of robbery with aggravation was on appeal placed merely on probation by the Supreme Court.
In another case early November last year 3 persons were convicted of robbery with aggravation. One of the criminals was 25 years old and had a long criminal record: he was bound over for larceny in 1962, put on probation for breach of the peace in 1965, gaoled for a week for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest in 1968 and fined $100 for larceny in the same year. In last November the facts were that this young but persistent criminal, together with 2 other persons, broke into the victim's home, tied up and gagged the husband, his wife and their teenage son, threatened them with a knife and covered them with a blanket and robbed them. His sentence was simply to be bound over for 2 years in the sum of $500. In other words, so long as he kept himself out of trouble for 2 years, there was no penalty at all.
Finally, I would like to mention a drug case heard last year in which a man was found guilty of possession of 1,111 grams of cannabis, popularly known as marijuana. In Hong Kong marijuana costs far more than heroin and this amount of marijuana would, I'm told, probably fetch over $20,000. The man was fined $1,500.
Mr. Chairman, in the cases I have mentioned there may have been special reasons justifying the apparently very light sentences involved. If there were, they have not been publicized and, to members of the public at least, the deterrent aspect of these sentences was lost sight of. Rumbles have been heard recently in various quarters that sentences of young violent offenders have been far too light and that the birch is the answer. I think the correct approach is to look at the courts' sentencing policy in an analytical rather than an emotional way. In my view it is not only that the sentences have been often far too light, but they have also been quite inconsistent.
It is important that like cases should be treated alike. In July of this year, the sentences meted out by the courts for simple larceny ranged from 2 weeks to 8 months, for larceny from the person from 3 months to 18 months, and for simple theft from a fine of $75 to 12 months. While different circumstances call for a different measure of punishment, the public may well wonder whether there is any consistency in the yardstick applied, particularly if due note is taken of the fact that it is unusual in Hong Kong, as indeed in any country, for robbers to get one month, blackmailers to get only three weeks or anyone found with a large quantity of dangerous drugs to get only a small fine.
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
325
The Rule of Law is the foundation of society and it is obviously important for us to have machinery to ensure uniformity and sense in criminal sentencing. In England, Commissions and advisory bodies have from time to time been set up in respect of the penal system and the treatment of offenders, such as the Royal Commission on the Penal System, the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders and the Home Secretary's Advisory Council on the Penal System. The time has come in Hong Kong for us to set up an advisory committee of this kind. (Applause).
MR. HENRY WONG:--Mr. Chairman, being the last speaker of the day, I think all my colleagues have covered almost all the important issues and there is little left for me to speak about, but I shall take the liberty of expressing my opinion on the following problems of pressing importance.
First I shall speak about Educational Television for all schools. According to the statement made by a Government spokesman from the Education Department the Educational Television Building in Broadcast Drive is under construction. It is expected that the Educational Television Studio will begin operation in the middle of 1971 and programmes will be transmitted to schools in September next year. The Government intends to install television receiver sets in all government primary schools and to give 50% subsidy of the cost of installing television in all subsidized schools, in preparation for the commencement of television education in 1971.
This is indeed praiseworthy. But how about private schools which, in fact, cater for over half of the school-going population? There is nothing mentioned about this type of school. Most of the private schools are already suffering from extreme financial hardship owing to the high rent increases-as evidenced by the number that have closed during the past years. And unless Government can help them there is no possibility for most of them to install Educational Television.
As Educational Television is now regarded as "a must" in Government and Subsidized schools, it seems ridiculous that half of the school-going population are to be deprived of it.
Again it was also stated when installed, the sets will be shared by morning and afternoon sessions at one set for every two divisions of Junior 3 or better known as primary 3 in the same session.
This is again absurd, as we all know that the accommodation for a class is about 40 to 45 students and to cram 80 or 90 students in one class would be impossible or not practicable.
324
Page 173 of 241
241
Page 172 of 241
324
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
I do not think that any member of the public would be deterred from committing violent robbery by the threat of being gaoled for one month or merely put on probation. Yet in a Kowloon case a man found guilty of robbery on 3 separate occasions was sentenced to only one month's imprisonment for each offence and in a New Territories case a youth found guilty of 2 counts of robbery with aggravation was on appeal placed merely on probation by the Supreme Court.
In another case early November last year 3 persons were con- victed of robbery with aggravation. One of the criminals was 25 years old and had a long criminal record: he was bound over for larceny in 1962, put on probation for breach of the peace in 1965, gaoled for a week for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest in 1968 and fined $100 for larceny in the same year. In last November the facts were that this young but persistent criminal, together with 2 other persons, broke into the victim's home, tied up and gagged the husband, his wife and their teenage son, threatened them with a knife and covered them with a blanket and robbed them. His sentence was simply to be bound over for 2 years in the sum of $500. In other words, so long as he kept himself out of trouble for 2 years, there was no penalty at all.
Finally, I would like to mention a drug case heard last year in which a man was found guilty of possession of 1,111 grams of can- nabis, popularly known as marijuana. In Hong Kong marijuana costs far more than heroin and this amount of marijuana would, I'm told, probably fetch over $20,000. The man was fined $1,500.
Mr. Chairman, in the cases I have mentioned there may have been special reasons justifying the apparently very light sentences involved. If there were, they have not been publicized and, to members of the public at least, the deterrent aspect of these sentences was lost sight of. Rumbles have been heard recently in various quarters that sentences of young violent offenders have been far too light and that the birch is the answer. I think the correct approach is to look at the courts' sentencing policy in an analytical rather than an emotional way. In my view it is not only that the sentences have been often far too light, but they have also been quite inconsistent.
It is important that like cases should be treated alike. In July of this year, the sentences meted out by the courts for simple larceny ranged from 2 weeks to 8 months, for larceny from the person from 3 months to 18 months, and for simple theft from a fine of $75 to 12 months. While different circumstances call for a different measure of punishment, the public may well wonder whether there is any consis- tency in the yardstick applied, particularly if due note is taken of the fact that it is unusual in Hong Kong, as indeed in any country, for robbers to get one month, blackmailers to get only three weeks or
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
325
anyone found with a large quantity of dangerous drugs to get only a small fine.
The Rule of Law is the foundation of society and it is obviously important for us to have machinery to ensure uniformity and sense in criminal sentencing. In England, Commissions and advisory bodies have from time to time been set up in respect of the penal system and the treatment of offenders, such as the Royal Commission on the Penal System, the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders and the Home Secretary's Advisory Council on the Penal System. The time has come in Hong Kong for us to set up an advisory committee of this kind. (Applause).
MR. HENRY WONG:--Mr. Chairman, being the last speaker of the day, I think all my colleagues have covered almost all the important issues and there is little left for me to speak about, but I shall take the liberty of expressing my opinion on the following problems of pressing importance.
First I shall speak about Educational Television for all schools. According to the statement made by a Government spokesman from the Education Department the Educational Television Building in Broadcast Drive is under construction. It is expected that the Educa- tional Television Studio will begin operation in the middle of 1971 and programmes will be transmitted to schools in September next year. The Government intends to install television receiver sets in all govern- ment primary schools and to give 50% subsidy of the cost of installing television in all subsidized schools, in preparation for the commence- ment of television education in 1971.
This is indeed praiseworthy. But how about private schools which, in fact, cater for over half of the school-going population? There is nothing mentioned about this type of school. Most of the private schools are already suffering from extreme financial hardship owing to the high rent increases-as evidenced by the number that have closed during the past years. And unless Government can help them there is no possibility for most of them to install Educational Television.
As Educational Television is now regarded as "a must" in Govern- ment and Subsidized schools, it seems ridiculous that half of the school- going population are to be deprived of it.
Again it was also stated when installed, the sets will be shared by morning and afternoon sessions at one set for every two divisions of Junior 3 or better known as primary 3 in the same session.
This is again absurd, as we all know that the accommodation for
a class is about 40 to 45 students and to cram 80 or 90 students in one class would be impossible or not practicable.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.