THE QUEEN v. KHAN NADEEM MUSTAFA

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

JUDGMENT

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

Mayo JA:

1. The appellant was the 2nd Defendant in the proceedings below. After trial he was convicted on two counts of blackmail. He appeals against these convictions. He also appeals against the sentences of 12 months' imprisonment which were ordered to be served concurrently which were imposed upon him.

2. The Prosecution case depended upon the evidence of two witnesses. PW1 was the proprietor of a Guest House in Chung King Mansion Tsim Sha Tsui. He gave evidence that in the evening of 12 October 1995 a group of men entered his guest house and caused a commotion. The men were demanding $10,000 which payment they described as being "Tax". They threatened PW1 with violence if the payment was not forthcoming. He said that he would advise them of his decision as to whether he would agree to make the payment the next day.

3. PW1 identified the appellant as being one of the men assuming a prominent role in this group.

4. The men did return the next day. When they did so PW1 was not present at the Guest House. PW2 was. He was a friend of PW1. He gave evidence that the two men entered the premises and said that PW1 had promised them $10,000. He threatened PW2 that if the payment was not affected serious consequences would ensue. The men also threw a telephone to the floor and broke the glass plate on a desk. PW2 identified the appellant as being one of the men.

5. The men returned again on 17 October when PW1 was present with three of his friends. Again money was demanded. The police were contacted and arrived before the men left. They were arrested.

6. The appellant gave evidence at the trial. He claimed not to have been present at the said premises on either the 12 or 13 October. The explanation he gave for his presence on 17 October was that he had intended to stay at the Guest House as a customer.

7. He claimed in his grounds of appeal that he was not guilty. In court before me he maintained his denial. He claimed not to have had any knowledge of what had been going on.

8. All of this of course was before the learned magistrate.

9. The case against the appellant was an overwhelming case. I can see no reason why the findings of the magistrate should in any way be interfered with. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.