HKSAR v. KU KA CHUN

CACC 465/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 465 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 361 OF 2004)

______________

______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Tang JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1.  The applicant was convicted after trial of attempted robbery by Judge Wesley Wong.

2.  The prosecution's case depended on the evidence of PW1 Chan Kan Hung.  According to him on 1 March 2004, at 2350 hours when he was walking along the footbridge from Tai Yuen Estate to Fu Heng Estate, he was approached by the applicant who pointed a pair of scissors at his neck near his left shoulder.  The defendant said “ robbery, take out your belongings or give me your belongings “PW1 warded him off with his left hand and continued walking along the footbridge.  The applicant caught up with him and asked if he knew him.  PW1 then reported the matter to the police and gave them description of the applicant's appearance and what he was wearing.  Within 10 minutes or so the applicant was arrested by PC 49648 (PW2) inside a 7-11 store.  He was searched by PC 49648 who found a pair of scissors inside his sleeve.

3.  When cautioned, the applicant said “ I only asked him for money” and he said that he was taking the pair of scissors to a friend.  But as the judge has pointed out the applicant was carrying the scissors inside his sleeve.  The judge did not believe him.

4.  The judge accepted the evidence of PW1 and PW2.

5.  The applicant who is acting in person has put forward 2 grounds of appeal.  As translated, they read:

“	1.	I was dealing with grievances for all the poor people on Earth on that day in the capacity of the Son of Heaven.  I asked for the God of Heaven to show himself to solve various problems.  And it resulted in this case of attempted robbery, and the loss of my precious freedom and time.  I now apply for appeal and would like to be self-represented.”
	2.	On the day in question, I had enough to eat and wear.  I was happy too quickly (sic).  There was no need to commit a crime.  I would like to apply for appeal and be self represented.”

6.  These grounds make no sense and cannot possibly succeed.  Nor can we detect any arguable ground of appeal.

7.  So the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

8.  The applicant was sentenced to 4½ years imprisonment.  He has a bad record.  He has 22 previous convictions and has been in and out of prison since he was 18.  

9.  The starting point for this kind of offences where a weapon has been used is five years.  The Judge has reduced it to 4½ years.  The sentence is proper and this application must also be refused.

10.  Both applications are dismissed.