HKSAR v. HUI HON HO AND OTHERS

CACC 220/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 52/2000)

__________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Hon Mayo Ag. CJHC (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This is an application for leave to appeal which is made by D2, D4, D6 and D7 in the trial below in the District Court before Judge Saunders. All these applicants had been convicted of various offences.

"D2, HUI Hon-ho	Count 1,	criminal intimidation;
	Count 4,	the 2nd criminal intimidation;
	Count 10,	resisting a police officer;
D4, HAU Kwong-wah	Count 4,	criminal intimidation;
	Count 5,	assault with intent to cause certain acts to be done or omitted;
	Count 7,	resisting a police officer;
D6, CHUNG Tin-shing	Count 4,	the 2nd criminal intimidation;
	Count 6,	assault with intent to cause certain acts to be done or omitted;
	Count 11,	resisting a police officer;
D7, CHAN Kam-tong	Count 1,	criminal intimidation;
	Count 4,	the 2nd criminal intimidation; and
	Count 8,	resisting a police officer"

2. These offences arose out of an undercover operation which was undertaken by the police at the Tierra Verde Estate near the Tsing Yi North Bridge. There had been complaints that tradesmen attempting to undertake decorating work on the Estate had been subjected to intimidation by a group of racketeers who were monopolising this work at the Estate.

3. On 23 September 1999 a plainclothes police officer went to 6th level of the podium and posed as a contractor soliciting employment. He saw D2, D3, D5 and D7 standing nearby. D3 indicated that he wished to speak to him. He approached the group and D3 made it clear to him by use of threats and foul language that he would not be permitted to work as a contractor on the Estate. D5 threatened to chop him and D2 and D7 made telephone calls on their mobile telephones for back up assistance. During the course of this incident words were uttered by some of the men which had a triad connotation.

4. When the situation appeared to be getting out of hand the officer gave a pre-arranged signal and other officers posing as security guards came to his assistance. It was necessary for the officers to summon further assistance to enable them to arrest all of the men involved.

5. The police officers gave evidence which was accepted by the Judge. Through their counsel defences were run that the whole incident was a fabrication. Also cross-examination of the officers attempted to elicit inconsistencies in their evidence.

6. None of the defendants went into the witness box. There was accordingly no evidence to contradict the evidence of the police officers. The Judge was satisfied that all of the offences these defendants had been charged with had been proven at the appropriate level.

7. These defendants have all put forward written grounds of appeal against their convictions. None of the grounds advanced begins to demonstrate any merit whatever. Nothing which has been advanced by any of these defendants would indicate that if leave was to be granted for them to prosecute an appeal that it would have any prospect of success. The applications are accordingly dismissed.

8. I take this opportunity to advise these defendants that if notwithstanding their failure to obtain leave they proceed with their appeals and they are found to be unmeritorious it is likely that the court will order that some or all of the time they have spent in custody will not count towards the sentences they serve.