THE QUEEN v. LAU KOON-WAI

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Hunter, JA:

1. On 10 May 1989, Lau Koon-wai was convicted after trial by Judge Fung of a number of offences and sentenced to be detained in a training centre.

2. The first offence for which he was convicted was that of intimidation. The charge was that he threatened Lee Cheok-hoi, who became PW1 in the case, with physical injury if he gave evidence at the forthcoming trial of another Mr Lau, Mr Lau Kwai-wah. That gentleman was due to be tried also for intimidation. The second charge was attempting to pervert the course of justice, and arose out of the making of the same threat to Lee. The third charge was possession of offensive weapons. He was there with another young man, yet another Mr Lau. That young man was said to be carrying a pole. He was said to be carrying a knife. The fourth offence was taking a conveyance without authority. The conveyance was an unlicensed taxi which was normally kept on the building site where all these events took place. The last offence for which he was convicted was burglary at the site canteen. It was said that he stole HK$1,000, 20 packets of cigarettes, a chopper and a bread knife.

3. All these incidents happened on the night of 14 December 1988 at the China Harbours Engineering Co construction site in Tuen Muen. The evidence given by PW1 was to this effect. He was asleep in a container which had been converted into a workshop on the site. He was awakened by the barking of a dog. He opened the door of the container and saw two people standing there which he identified as the two defendants. This defendant he said was armed with a knife, the other with a pole. His own dog was lying on the ground with its head bleeding. This applicant and his co-defendant then threatened him with physical injury if he gave evidence at the forthcoming trial of Lau Kwai-wan. He became very frightened and closed the door. They continued to threaten him and battered at the door. He was fearful that the door was going to give way. In order to temporise, he said he would speak to the other Mr Lau the next day. To encourage their departure, he said they could take this old taxi that was on the site. After a time they left, as he saw, driving the taxi. Before they departed, on the judge's findings they broke into the canteen and stole the items, which were enumerated in the charge which I have just read. PW1 reported the matter to the police and the following morning went round with the police to look for his taxi, Both defendants were found asleep in the taxi. In the taxi were also found the chopper and the bread knife which were identified as having come from the canteen.

4. This applicant gave evidence that he went no where near the site that night. He went out with friends. It was the friends who produced this taxi. The two of them went to sleep in it when it ran out of fuel.

5. The judge assessed the evidence given in the case with care and at length. He considered the quality of the identification and the credibility of the various witnesses. He accepted that PW1 was a witness of truth upon whom he could rely. He rejected the evidence given by this applicant. Accordingly he convicted him of the first four charges, intimidation, attempting to pervert the course of justice, possession of offensive weapons and taking the conveyance. He pointed out correctly that the consent induced by threats was not a real consent. As far as the burglary was concerned, he observed that the applicant and his friend were found in the taxi shortly after the burglary had taken place, with two items of stolen goods in the vehicle. They advanced no satisfactory explanation. He found them guilty of that offence too.

6. The only ground of appeal which is sought to be advanced is that the trial judge made a wrong assessment of this evidence. He should not have believed PW1. It was apparent that the trial judge looked at this evidence with the greatest care and there is no way in which this court can interfere with his assessement of the credibility of witnesses.

7. The application fails and must be dismissed.