HKSAR v. LI HUNG MO

HCMA619/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.619 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 1375 OF 2002)

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. On 10 June 2002, this appellant appeared before Ms Julia Livesey at the Eastern Magistrates' Court where he faced a charge of attempted theft. She convicted him and sentenced him to a term of nine months' imprisonment. He now appeals against his conviction only.

2. The facts which give rise to this matter can be stated shortly. The two prosecution witnesses were both serving police officers who had come off duty. This was on 1 May this year at about 11:45 p.m. They were making their way home. They got to a bus stop just outside 1 Fleming Road, Wanchai. The PW1, who is the complainant, went to the bus queue to wait for the arrival of the bus. His colleague went to a nearby newspaper stall. The complainant, PW1, then started to speak to a friend on his mobile telephone and whilst he was standing in the queue, he told the learned magistrate, that he became aware that his rucksack which was slung over his back was being moved. He then turned around to see what was going on and, according to him, he found the appellant with his right hand in the rucksack, trying to lift the officer's wallet from it. He immediately turned around and grabbed hold of the appellant's hand. At this stage, the other police officer came over. They arrested the appellant and he was taken to the police station.

3. The appellant was at the time a tourist from the Mainland, he was here perfectly lawfully. The appellant's case is that this has all been made up by the police officers. In the course of his evidence, he explained what he was doing. He is a man of previous good character. In the course of, if I may say so, a careful Statement of Findings, the magistrate has rehearsed the evidence before her. It was for her to decide who was telling the truth and who was not telling the truth. In doing so, she has explained with great care why it was that she believed the two prosecution witnesses and why she disbelieved the appellant. She has quite correctly reminded herself of the effect of the appellant's previous good character in relation to the case as a whole and I can find nothing which would cause me to interfere in any way with her findings. This appeal must stand dismissed.