HKSAR v. CHAN CHI KIN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No. 460
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Leong, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The Applicant was convicted after a trial before Judge Kilgour in the District Court of robbery. The charge alleged that he together with another defendant on 18 December 1996 robbed a lady Mak Lai Yuk of a gold bracelet and a necklace with a pendant. He was sentenced to detention in a Training Centre. He now applies for leave to appeal against conviction.

2. The prosecution evidence is that on 18 December 1996 at about 4.55 p.m. the lady Ms Mak was waiting for the lift on the ground floor of her home on the 23/F, Wah Ming Estate. When the lift came, she entered the lift with another passenger and the Applicant and his co defendant followed. After the other passenger got out on the 17/F, and when the lift door had closed, the Applicant and the other defendant together snatched the bracelet and the necklace from the lady. She was punched on the head and body when she started to shout. The Applicant and the co defendant got out when the lift stopped on the 23/F. The lady struggled with the Applicant who managed to get off after his blue denim coat was pulled off from him. She returned home and alerted the police.

3. Police officers on patrol learning of the robbery rushed to the scene arriving there very shortly afterwards. The Applicant and his co defendant were caught when they were seen running to the bus stop at Ming Wah Estate. When the Applicant was arrested, a gold bracelet was found in his jean's pocket. When he was asked by the police officer how he got the bracelet, he said it had been snatched from a lady. The bracelet was identified by the lady. The other defendant was also caught and from his person a gold necklace with a pendant was found. The Applicant's cautioned statement was admitted in evidence after the trial judge in a voir dire ruled that it was a voluntary statement.

4. The defence of the Applicant was that he was there chatting with his friends and that the bracelet was planted on him by the police officers after it was picked up by the police officers when they were pursuing two youths who had fled from a taxi.

5. Before us, the Applicant states that the judge was biased. But there is nothing to substantiate that. The judge had considered all the evidence and rejected the evidence of the Applicant finding the Applicant's evidence completely "unfounded and frankly absurd". The judge convicted the applicant on the prosecution evidence of the lady, the discovery of the damaged ornament on him only minutes after the robbery together with the admission made by him immediately on his arrest. There was ample evidence to convict him.

6. The Applicant had not advanced any other grounds of appeal. The application for leave to appeal to his conviction is dismissed.