- 5 9. Counsel for the Appellant said that community service is an equivalent to imprisonment or at least a very real and effective alternative to imprisonment and is not to be regarded in any way as a soft option or as a let-off. I am prepared to accept that community service is not a soft option or let-off. But there is a very real difference between community service and any form of custodial sentence. As to community service being an alternative to a custodial sentence, there are cases where it is more appropriate than a custodial sentence. But even where the circumstances of the offender make him a viable candidate for a community service order, there must be most unusual circumstances before such an order or any other form of non-custodial sentence can be regarded as an appropriate alternative to a custodial sentence for an offence against s. 161. That is clear from the Court of Appeal’s decision in Tam Hei Lun. 10. In the present case, the Appellant had offended before, but not under s. 161 and not very seriously. He lived with a cohabitee and her parents. He has a business of his own, but it is one in connection with which this offence was committed. He appears to the remorseful. And he has in his favour the Probation Officer’s recommendation of a community service order. His personal circumstances are not those of a prime candidate for a community service order. Even so, if the Magistrate had said that a community service order is appropriate to the circumstances of the Appellant, I would not have contradicted that. 11. Looking at his Reasons for Sentence, one sees that the Magistrate’s refusal to order community service and his decision to order detention instead are based not on his view of the circumstances of this offender but rather on his view of the circumstances of this offence.