HKSAR v. LUI KA YIN GLORIA

HCMA 596/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2005

(ON APPEAL FROM KTCC 1717 OF 2005)

______________________

_____________

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

1.  This Appellant, a woman in her late 20s, was convicted after trial before Stephen Smout, Esq. in the Magistrate’s Court at Kwun Tong of aiding and abetting an attempt to obtain property by deception.  She now appeals against her conviction.

2.  The particulars of the charge were that on 24 October 2004 at Lok Fu Shopping Centre in Wong Tai Sin the Appellant

“did aid and abet LAI Shuk-yee Zoe to attempt to dishonestly obtain from Aeon Stores (Hong Kong) Company Limited, a quantity of bird’s nest worth HK$2,224, with the intention of permanently depriving the said Aeon Stores (Hong Kong) Company Limited thereof, by deception, namely falsely representing that the said LAI Shuk-yee Zoe was authorized to use a Dah Sing Bank Visa Card, A/C No. 4975-0000-0561-9617, in name of CHAN Wing-man, to effect payment.”

3.  Ms Lai pleaded guilty, and she gave evidence for the prosecution against the Appellant.  If, but only if, Ms Lai’s evidence is accurate the Appellant would be guilty as charged.  The Magistrate accepted Ms Lai’s evidence.

4.  All the perfected grounds of appeal filed on the Appellant’s behalf are directed to attacking the Magistrate’s acceptance of Ms Lai’s evidence.

5.  I have given anxious consideration to everything said on behalf of the Appellant.  While Ms Lai’s evidence had to be approached with caution, she is not a witness whom no court is entitled to believe.  Nor was her evidence such that no court is entitled to accept it.  The Magistrate’s reasons show that he was fully aware of the caution with which the evidence of a witness like Ms Lai has to be approached and that he was aware of the specific problems with her evidence.  His views of what was or was not far-fetched were views which can be supported.  In the circumstances, I do not consider it appropriate to disturb this conviction.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.