- 7 - Present Appeals 1st appellant It was argued that the Detention Centre sentence in respect of the 1st appellant was manifestly excessive. Strong reliance was placed on the fact that the 1st appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and that previously he had a clear record. Undoubtedly he was of a young age. He was 19 at the time of sentence. He came from a stable home background. He had a good work and study record. It was argued that a community service order would benefit the 1st appellant : he had shown genuine remorse and was unlikely to re-offend. Furthermore the offences which he committed were at the lower end of the scale since the gain which he made was relatively small and indeed his offence was significantly less serious than that of the 2nd appellant. Any custodial sentence would be likely to disrupt the 1st appellant’s course of study which he was undertaking in his spare time. Particular point was made that it was not an appropriate case for a deterrent sentence since there was no evidence to show that the offences were prevalent in Hong Kong. Whilst it is true that the number of prosecutions in respect of section 161 offences is at present small, the damage which such offences can cause should not be underestimated. As has been said above, unless there are unusual circumstances, a non-custodial sentence would be inappropriate for offences contrary to section 161. In our view, given the