THE QUEEN v. WONG POR

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 277 OF 1988

_________

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant was convicted of burglary and of three charges of assaulting a police officer. He withdrew his appeal against conviction and sentence on the burglary charge. I allowed his appeal against conviction on the other charges and now give my written reasons for so doing.

2. The prosecution case was that two officers were on patrol in Nathan Road at 4.40 a.m. on 3rd August 1987, when they heard suspicious noises coming from inside a restaurant. They called for reinforcements and began to investigate. The appellant ran out of the cockloft, past two officers and out the front door.

3. A chase ensued and the appellant was eventually trapped by four police officers in a lane off Temple Street, about 200 yards from the restaurant. The appellant struggled with the officers and struck them with his hands and elbows. They all fell to the ground and eventually the appellant was overpowered and handcuffed.

4. The officers denied that they had used more force than necessary and said they themselves had suffered minor injuries. No medical evidence was called by the prosecution.

5. The appellant gave evidence and said he was arrested after urinating in the street. He was handcuffed and severely beaten with "continuous and savage blows". He did not resist and was eventually rendered semi-conscious, before being taken by ambulance to Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

6. A medical report was put in by consent. The doctor who examined the appellant at 5.20 a.m. that morning described his condition thus : 'Multiple bruises and abrasions over right forehead and temperal area, nasal bridge, both cheeks, left side of upper and lower lips, left side of neck, left lower chest wall, left shoulder, anterior part of right elbow, posterior part of elbow and inner side of left ankle - pain on touching lower ribs of left side'.

7. According to the report, the appellant returned to hospital at 3.00 p.m. on 4th August and was admitted but discharged himself later that day against medical advice.

8. The magistrate found the police officers to be honest and reliable witnesses, who had not used more force than necessary. He disbelieved the appellant.

9. He makes no reference in his Statement of Findings to the appellant's injuries, in spite of the stress laid on them by defence counsel in his address. Had he given due consideration to the medical report, he must have had grave doubts that the arrest took place in the way the police officers stated.

10. For this reason I allowed the appeal and quashed to conviction.