|
HCMA000025/1996
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.25 OF 1996
--------------------
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
THE QUEEN |
Respondent |
|
|
|
|
AND |
|
|
|
|
|
WONG MUI MUI |
Appellant |
--------------------
Coram : Hon Duffy, J. in Court
Date of hearing : 8 February 1996
Date of handing down judgment : 15 February 1996
-------------------------
J U D G M E N T
-------------------------
1. This was an appeal against a conviction for theft. The appellant was a hostess in a karoake lounge. She met the victim in the case in the karoake lounge where she worked, the Mui Kwai Yuen Karoake Lounge, and they became friendly. By arrangement they met each other on 25th October and went to the San Diego Hotel, where they had sexual intercourse. Afterwards, there was a dispute about payment and in a fit of anger, the appellant took the victim's watch from the hotel when she left. The victim reported the matter to the police and the appellant was arrested. Under caution, she said that when she had taken the watch in a fit of anger, as a result of the dispute over payment, she had, at that time, intended to throw the watch into a dustbin. Later she said in that statement that she realised that it was wrong to do so, so she took the watch home to decide how to deal with it.
2. The victim in this case, Mr Ip King Ng, did not give evidence at the trial. No reason was given for his absence. The appellant's cautioned statement was adduced in evidence.
3. The simple point on the appeal was that the Crown had not established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to deprive Mr Ip permanently of his watch. The appellant gave evidence at the trial that she did not intend to keep the watch but was waiting to see if the victim, Mr Ip, would call her so that she could return the watch to him. As he did not do so, she had to find some other way of dealing with the matter. Then she was arrested by the police.
4. Credibility was an essential element in this case. The appellant had a clear record. This was not referred to in the learned Magistrate's findings. The truth or otherwise of her statement had to be assessed by the learned Magistrate and it was crucial that he was aware, or directed himself, or took account of the fact that this woman was 39 years age and had no previous convictions in Hong Kong. It seemed to me that in light of that, the Magistrate's approach to the appellant's story might have been different. Certainly the story was not entirely implausible. I therefore found the conviction in this case unsafe and allowed the appeal.
Representation:
Mr Tam Yiu Ho, S.C.C., for Crown
Mr Chan Chung (Arthur K.H. Chan & Co.) for Appellant
- 3 -
|
(J.M. Duffy) |
|
Judge of the High Court |
|