THE QUEEN v. LAM CHI SANG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

No 117 of 1988

(Criminal)

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Hunter, J.A.:

1. In March 1988 three men, of which the applicant, Lam Chi Sang was the third, stood trial before H H Judge Moylan on 2 charges, one of blackmail and secondly, of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. other two defendants were concerned with these and a third charge. This applicant was convicted upon both those charges and now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction.

2. The charges related to the events of the night of 27th November 1987.The victim was the owner of a congee store in Lok Shan Road. His evidence was that four men, including the three then on trial, entered his store at a late hour, demanded HK$200 "for the brothers to have a meal", and threatened him with serious consequences if he failed to pay. When he sought to turn away and leave them, he was assaulted. The other two defendants were said to have assaulted him with stools. This applicant was said to have used his fists. Unfortunately for the three defendants, at that time four policemen were passing in a unmarked vehicle. They saw the fracas and intervened. Their evidence was directed principally to the other two defendants, who were arrested at the site. There was, however, some evidence from one of the police officers that he saw this applicant using his fists against the victim.

3. Later in the morning, at about 2.40 am the applicant presented himself at Ho Man Tin Police Station. He had changed his clothes. He said he came to bail out the second defendant in the court Unfortunately for him, the victim happened to be at the Police Station. As soon as he saw the applicant, he identified him as one of his attackers. He did that because the applicant was known to him, having been involved in an incident at his store about three months before. That was the evidence tendered in the court below against this applicant.

4. He gave evidence to very different effect saying he had nothing to do with the fight at all, and quite innocently went to the Police Station to bail out his friend. He did, however, involve himself in the main issue by asserting that he had seen the four police officers concerned at the store earlier in the evening having, a night snack. That evidence was denied by all of the police officers.

5. In those circumstances, a serious question of credibility, arose before the trial judge which he had to resolve. He accepted the victim's evidence and his identification. He rejected this applicant's denials. He specifically rejected the evidence he had given about the police officers as being, baseless. In those circumstances, he convicted the applicant of both these offences.

6. Both by his written grounds of appeal and by his submissions to this Court this afternoon, the applicant has sought to persuade us that the judge's factual assessments were wrong. His submissions come down to this "the judge was wrong to reject my evidence. He should have believed what I had said and rejected all the other witnesses". But as was pointed out to him in the course of the argument, questions of credibility are peculiarly for the trial judge. There is nothing here which would start to enable this Court to criticise or challenge his findings.

7. This application is accordingly dismissed.