Ambrose J:

In this case the appellant was convicted of assisting in carrying on a public lottery, an offence against s. 4 (1)(c) of the Common Gaming Houses Ordinance, 1961, and sentenced to a fine of $3,000 or, in default, six months' imprisonment. The appellant abandoned her appeal against conviction and proceeded with her appeal against sentence.

The appellant was a seamstress when she was convicted, and a maidservant earning $50 per month when her appeal was heard. The fine of $3,000 seemed to me to be manifestly excessive. It appeared to have been imposed with a view to punishing the promoters of the public lottery in question. A fine should always be related to the means of the offender. The imposition of a fine beyond the appellant's means or six months' imprisonment in default of payment was tantamount to sentencing the appellant to six months' imprisonment without the option of a fine. The point to be considered was whether upon the facts of the present case such a sentence was appropriate. The appellant was a first offender and seventeen years old at the time of her conviction. It is desirable that, as far as possible, a first offender under the age of twenty one years should be kept out of prison, unless the offence is so serious that a sentence of imprisonment has to be imposed. I did not think that assisting in carrying on a public lottery is so serious an offence. Before imposing imprisonment on an offender under twenty-one, the Court must be of the opinion that no other method of dealing with the offender is appropriate. I was of the opinion that it would be more beneficial to the appellant and to the community at large to discharge her subject to the condition that she commits no offence during a period of twelve months. It seemed to me that a discharge subject to such a condition would deter the appellant from committing a similar offence for twelve months more effectively than a fine within her means, because in the event of her committing another offence during the twelve months she could be punished for that offence as well as for the original offence. Furthermore it seemed to me that by resisting the temptation to repeat the offence for a period of twelve months she would increase the chances of her resisting the temptation thereafter. It was for the above reasons that I set aside the sentence and discharged the appellant subject to the condition that she commits no offence during a period of twelve months.

Sentence set aside.

Appellant discharged conditionally.