HKSAR v. CHONG MING LOOK

HCMA408/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.408 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM NKCC 287 OF 2002)

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This is an appeal against conviction only. The appellant was convicted after trial of an offence of wounding contrary to section 19 of the offences against the Persons Ordinance, Cap. 212. The general ground of appeal of the appellant is that the conviction was unsafe and unsupported by the evidence.

2. The facts of the offence as found by the magistrate were that the appellant had been "pressing" the victim for repayment of an alleged gambling debt of HK$200. The appellant said it was owed to him by the victim, but the victim denied any such debt was in fact owed. The appellant on the charged date had again "pressed" the victim for the debt and when the victim refused to pay, had hit him on the head with a brick, or part of a brick, causing a 1.5 centimeter laceration requiring two stitches.

3. The appellant's version of events, which was rejected by the magistrate, was that the victim was the aggressor, and had run towards the appellant, whilst armed with a brick causing the appellant himself to pick up a brick. But they had only struggled together without the appellant hitting the victim and the victim had then fallen down onto the ground and had so injured himself.

4. The magistrate's verdict was based on reasoned grounds. This was not a case of a court arbitrarily accepting one version of events over another. The magistrate had, in addition to finding the victim to be an honest and reliable witness, placed considerable weight upon the evidence of the police officer who attended the scene and who had arrested the appellant. That officer's evidence had been to the effect that the appellant had admitted striking the victim with a brick.

5. The magistrate had said in this regard :

"Further PW2 [the police officer] was honest and believable and he had attended the scene subsequently and I accept that the appellant had said to him inter alia, that he had had a quarrel with PW1 [the victim] and had hit him on the head with a brick. The appellant had indicated the brick to PW2 and that is in fact the brick produced in court. This was said by the appellant, was voluntary and full weight is put on it."

6. The magistrate rejected the appellant's version of events given at trial to the effect the victim was the aggressor. The version of the appellant was disbelieved by the magistrate. In that regard the magistrate said this :

"I have heard and carefully considered the evidence of the appellant. He did not impress me in the witness box at all and I did not believe his version of events. I do not accept and reject the fact that the appellant says PW1 [the victim] was in fact the aggressor and was the first one who picked up a brick and came running at him with it, whereupon the appellant had picked up another brick merely to scare him, and that PW1 fell over and the injury to his head occurred."

7. These were findings the magistrate was entitled to make. He was certainly entitled to find that the evidence of the victim was supported by the admission made by the appellant to the arresting police officer.

8. The conviction was properly supported by the magistrate's findings of fact. Those findings of fact were properly made on the basis of the evidence before the magistrate.

9. The appeal is dismissed.