HKSAR v. CHAN MAU LUNG

HCMA 61/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2003

(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 16229/2002)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This is an appeal against conviction. The appellant was convicted of possessing obscene articles for the purpose of publication. In a word, he was hawking 98 obscene VCDs in Temple Street in August of last year.

2. Two police officers gave evidence at the trial below. They watched him hawking his wares. They heard him shouting out, "A hundred for eight. Assured it is clear, and if not, exchange. Category 4, no squares". The appellant gave evidence. He said that he was merely a customer seeking to buy a dirty VCD and that he was not the seller.

3. The case thus turned on who was telling the truth, the policemen or the appellant. The magistrate believed the policemen. He gives reasons for doing which are compelling, and he was in a much better position than I am today to judge the matter because, with issues like this, how the witnesses appear in court is a matter of significance.

4. Nothing that the appellant has been able to put before me today makes me doubt the correctness of the conviction. He merely repeats that he was a buyer and not a seller. His main complaint was that the magistrate decided the case like a fortune-teller, that the magistrate looked at his face and decided that he was a seller of dirty disks. Of course, the magistrate did no such thing. He analysed the evidence carefully as appears from the statement of findings and, in these circumstances and on the facts as they appear, he came to the conclusion which I would have done, and which I suspect every other magistrate in this jurisdiction would have done as well.

5. Accordingly, this appeal against conviction is dismissed.