R. v. HO WING KWONG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 330

(Criminal)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Mayo JA giving the judgment of the Court:

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his convictions on one count of false imprisonment, one count of common assault and one count of blackmail. He was D1 in the proceedings below.

2. The main witness in the trial below before HH Judge Britton was the victim in the first two counts.

3. PW1 went on an unsuccessful gambling expedition to Macau. On his making his way back to Hong Kong early on 28 July he met two men at the Macau Ferry Concourse. They agreed to lend him $60,000 to gamble with. They accompanied him to the casino and he lost it all. One of the men insisted on accompanying him back to Hong Kong. On arrival in Hong Kong they met up with the applicant D3 and D4 in the proceedings below and were later joined by D2.

4. The gist of the prosecution case was that PW1 was prevented by the defendants from going his own way for a period of approximately 30 hours while a succession of demands were made for $135,000 to be paid to them as a condition precedent to his release. The demands were made principally to PW1's parents. Also a demand was made to one of his friends.

5. During the course of the detention a visit was made to PW1's employer where a request was made for an advance. D3 was present when this request was made. The application was refused. Also there was an application to a finance company for a loan in a similar manner and this was also refused.

6. The assault charge related to an assault which was made upon PW1 during the detention and the blackmail charge related to a demand for the $135,000 made to PW1's mother on 29 July. It was alleged that the applicant threatened the mother that unless the moneys were forthcoming he would inject PW1 with heroin.

7. The judge was reluctant to convict the defendants on the uncorroborated evidence of PW1 as he considered that he was a weak character and had two previous convictions involving dishonesty.

8. However there was corroboration of the principal aspects of the prosecution case. In particular the judge considered PW1's parents and particularly his mother to be a convincing and satisfactory witnesses. They described the telephone calls which they received and the fact that they had reported the matter to the police. There was also the evidence of the employer and the representative of the finance company which was consistent with PW1's testimony.

9. The applicant went into the witness box and gave evidence. The thrust of his evidence was that the victim had of his own volition remained with him and his friends. He had simply been assisting his friend in Macau in recovering the debt which was due to him.

10. The judge characterised the applicant's evidence as "a ludicrous pack of lies". It is perhaps not surprising that he found this.

11. In his fairly lengthy grounds of appeal the applicant invites us to traverse the case he presented at the trial again. All of the matters referred to either were or should have been ventilated at the trial and we can see no reason to interfere with the judge's findings of fact.

12. Before us the applicant had nothing of substance to add.

13. The conviction was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory and this application is dismissed.