HKSAR v. KEITA ALI

HCMA 61/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 61 OF 2013

(ON APPEAL FROM KTCC 5430 OF 2012)

____________________

__________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

1. This is an appeal against a conviction for two cases of indecent assault.

2. At 4 am in the morning on 25 September of 2012, two young women were walking in Shantung Street, Mong Kok.  The pavement was narrow.  The appellant was walking in the opposite direction to them.  As he walked between the two ladies, they said he suddenly raised his hands.  One lady said that he used his left hand to touch her left breast, and the other young lady testified that his right hand brushed across her abdomen from the left side to the right side.

3. Both made the relevant accusation at the time against the appellant.  The police were called.  The appellant allowed his mobile telephone to be used to do so.

4. At the trial in the Magistrates’ Court, the appellant elected not to give evidence.  The evidence therefore before the magistrate was all one way.  There was one question for him to decide:  it was whether the two young ladies were credible witnesses telling the truth.  He had the advantage of seeing and hearing them, and he judged that they were telling the truth.  He explained why in a competent statement of findings.  He rejected the idea that they had gone out deliberately to frame someone up, and he judged that there was not time for them on the spot to make up such a story where both supported the account each of them gave.

5. The appellant was represented by the duty lawyer at the trial.  What was suggested to the two young ladies was that there had been an accidental contact, and that the appellant had not used his arms at all, both of them bumping into his upper arms.

6. Of course, that was suggestion, and it remains suggestion, because it was rejected by the witnesses, and there was no evidence from the appellant to the contrary.

7. Today the appellant, in argument, has merely repeated that the incident never happened as the prosecution said.  He has been unable to put before me any fact or matter which would make me doubt the judgment of the magistrate.

8. On the evidence before me, I come to the same conclusion as the magistrate did.

9. Accordingly, the appeal against the two convictions is dismissed.