R. v. LI HUNG

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1394 OF 1996

______________

______________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1. The Appellant was found inside a Cox Road Park at 2:45 a.m. on 10th October 1996 by police officers patrolling the area. The officers asked him to produce his identity card. He produced from the right pocket of his jeans an identity card in the name of Lai Wan Sing. The Appellant told the officers the identity card belonged to him and he was called Lai Wan Sing. The Appellant was arrested on suspicion of possession of an identity card belonging to another person. Lai Wan Sing told the magistrate he did not know the Appellant and the identity card was lost by him in October 1996. The Appellant told the magistrate in evidence that he was searched by the officers. At the time he was minding a jacket belonged to Lai Wan Sing. The officers took out the identity card from that jacket and he never showed the identity card to the officers. He denied he had claimed to be Lai Wan Sing. The magistrate accepted the evidence of the police officer and did not believe the Appellant. The Appellant was convicted of the offence of possession of an identity card belonging to another person.

2. Before the magistrate sentenced the Appellant, two medical reports from Dr Kam and Dr Yuen both registered medical practitioners were before the magistrate. These certified that the Appellant was a mentally disordered person requiring in-patient treatment. The magistrate accordingly made a hospital order for the Appellant to be detained in the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre for a period of three months.

3. The Appellant now appeals against conviction and sentence.

4. On conviction, it is a question of fact. The magistrate accepted the evidence that the Appellant had produced the lost identity card of Lai Wan Sing claiming it as his own and therefore the offence of possession of an identity card belonging to another person was made out. The Appellant's evidence that he only had the jacket in his custody at the time and therefore the identity card which was inside the pocket of the jacket was not in his possession was rejected by the magistrate.

5. The two medical doctors diagnosed that the Appellant was suffering from chronic schizophrenia. The Appellant had a history of alcohol abuse. He had been admitted to Castle Peak Hospital for treatment as well as detained in Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre under a Hospital Order for more than once. The Appellant had defaulted in his out-patient follow up treatment after discharged.

6. The Appellant was found to be fully conscious and was in adequate contact with the environment. He had hallucination but he knew very well the offence with which he had been charged and convicted and admitted to the doctor that he had another person's identity card on him.

7. On the evidence accepted by the magistrate, the magistrate was entitled to convict the Appellant as charged. Even though the two medical reports state that he was mentally disordered, the Appellant was not so disordered as to render him unfit for trial. The conviction is not unsafe and unsatisfactory.

8. The Appellant had a number of previous convictions and had been to the Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre before. The sentence in the form of a hospital order for the Appellant's detention in Siu Lam is not inappropriate in the circumstances.

9. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.