- 8 age of the 1st appellant, a Detention Centre sentence was appropriate. 3rd appellant Of particular significance in relation to the 3rd appellant is that he was 16 at the time when the majority of the offences were committed, specifically those relating to making unauthorised copies of copyright works. Again, the 3rd appellant had strong family support and was considered in the probation officers report as being suitable for community service order. He has been studying at the Open University and a custodial sentence would undoubtedly disrupt that. Nevertheless his offences also included, importantly, the copying of copyright works and selling them to members of the public commercially, even if the scale of the operation was small and in the nature of a part-time and almost amateur, cottage industry rather than a factory type operation. Even on this basis alone, we do not see that the custodial sentence, namely that of a Detention Centre, was wrong or manifestly excessive. (M. Stuart-Moore) Chief Judge, High Court (Ag.) (Anthony Rogers) Vice-President (K.H. Woo) Justice of Appeal Mr I. Grenville Cross, SC Director of Public Prosecutions and Mr David Leung, SGC for the Respondent Mr Thomas Chan instructed by Messrs Peter W.K. Lo & Co for 1st Appellant Mr Philip Ross instructed by Director of Legal Aid for 3rd Appellant