HKSAR v. CHAN YUEN CHEONG

HCMA1169/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1169 OF 1998

(On appeal from TWC 2574 of 1998)

----------

-----------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

1. I am afraid I have to dismiss the appeal, because the appellant is challenging the acceptance of evidence by the magistrate. In the ground of appeal, number one, as I said before, the appellant states, "Ground number one, no witness." Of course, there was witness. The appellant raises a number of matters as to why his evidence should be believed, but not the police's, but I do not have the opportunity, as the magistrate had, in observing the witnesses, including the appellant, when they gave evidence before him. He accepted the prosecution evidence and rejected the appellant's.

2. One of the points raised by the appellant in his grounds of appeal is that the court identification was unfair, but during the course of the evidence, the course of the proceedings before the magistrate, the appellant never raised identification as an issue. Even in addressing me, the appellant said, "Well, there were two police officers; one was over-looking at the place where I was, and why did he and the other police officer not arrest me immediately there and then?" That disproves any wrong identification; the appellant admitted to be there.

3. The other ground of appeal that the appellant raises is that inside the concourse, inside the arrivals hall, there was no notice put up by the Airport Authority to show that no touting without the Airport Authority's permission was allowed. That I sympathise with him, but the magistrate also expressed his view on that, which is entirely correct. He said, "I found that the fact that the possible ignorance of the appellant as to the existence of the prohibition did not provide him with any defence to the charge."

4. I agree that it would be much better for the Airport Authority to put up notices at conspicuous places to show that no touting is allowed without their permission inside the airport terminal, but that is not a legal requirement to find the appellant guilty, and I have seen no ground upon which I can allow the appeal and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.