THE QUEEN v. POON MAN-SHING AND OTHERS

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Yang, J. A.:

1. At about 11 p.m. on the 13th January a serious civil disturbance (which has since come to be known as the "taxi drivers' riot") occurred in that part of Nathan Road between Argyle Street and Nelson Street.  Some five thousand people gathered there and there was a vanguard of some twenty young people rushing forward and storming the Yamato Shoe Shop.  The metal shutter of the shop was broken and a number of people entered. Inside, glass showcases were smashed and shoes and handbags were looted. Fittings and stock were damaged. Stock and cash were later discovered to be missing. The total loss estimated by the proprietor of that shop came to something like $75,000.

2. The situation, as one might expect, was chaotic at the time and the policemen there were far outnumbered by the rioters.  It was a most difficult situation for the police.   Nevertheless the organisation and the training of the police were such that police officers were able to identify a number of these rioters and arrest them.

3. Each of the applicants appearing before us today was seen by a particular police officer either inside the shop or rushing out of it, or to be in close proximity of the entrance.   Each was seen to carry either shoes or handbags which came from the shop.   Again, when he was arrested he put up some physical resistance until he was subdued.

4. There was, in our view, ample evidence for the judge to come to the conclusion that the applicants were guilty of the offences charged.

5. A point of law was raised in today's argument.  It was said that the trial judge failed to comply with section 80 of the District Court Ordinance when he prepared his Reasons for Verdicts. By that section a judge is obliged to do nothing more than make a short statement of the reasons for his decision.  As long as he includes all the important features of the case and gives general reasons for his conclusions, that will suffice. In this case, he discussed the evidence for the prosecutions as well as the evidence for the defence, and eventually, after considering all the evidence including the discrepancies, he came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt against each of the applicants.

6. The judgment was adequate in our view and, in saying this, we follow the judgment in the case of Sheik Abdul Rahman Bux⁽¹⁾.

7. For the reasons stated we would dismiss the application for leave to appeal against conviction.

(1)    Criminal Appeal 756 of 1981