- 6 “As a general rule it is undersirable that a first sentence of
immediate imprisonment should be very long, disproportinate to the
gravity of the offence, and imposed, as this sentence was, for
reasons of general deterrence, that is as a warning to others. The
length of a first sentence is more reasonbly determined by
considerations of individual deterrence.”
This principle has been adopted by the Court of Appeal in Hong
Kong both in the case of R. v. LEUNG Sum (Cr. App. 410/77, unreported)
and in R. v. Garthwaite (Cr. App. 566/77, unreported). In the case of
Garthwaite, the learned Chief Justice had this to say:“Finally, it is not desirable that the first sentence of imprisonment
passed on an offender should be a deterrent sentence in the sense of
a general deterrent to deter other persons from behaving as this
appeallant did.” ”
Therefore, what Addison J. said was that in accordance with the cases, a
deterrence in rem, on a first offender was generally wrong in principle.
In this case, I am totally satisfied that a deterrent both in personam
and in rem are justified. The court must discharge its duty and bring home
loudly and clearly to the Appellant and the public that such or similar
behaviour will not be tolerated and that those who do transgress will be dealt
with severely and without mercy.
In all the circumstances, nothing said on the Appellant’s behalf or
about the case has caused me the slightest hesitation that the starting point of
30 months and the concurrent terms of 21 months passed by the learned
Magistrate was anything but proper. The terms are in no degree excessive nor
in anywise