TSANG KWOK KWONG v. R.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 593

(Criminal)

___________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Litton, V-P giving the judgment of the Court:

1. The applicant was convicted by Deputy Judge Z E Li in the District Court on two charges: one of blackmail under section 23 of the Theft Ordinance and the other of claiming to be a member of a triad society, contrary to section 20(2) of the Societies Ordinance.

2. Both offences occurred at a construction site at Sai Sha Road, Sai Kung on 8 October 1993. The evidence against the applicant leading to his conviction consisted of the testimony of two witnesses: (1) Cheng Wo Hing (PW1) a construction workman employed by Sze Tak Construction Company, who had been described erroneously by the Judge as the responsible person at the site and (2) DPC 17282 Lau Chun Man (PW2) who was an undercover police officer.

3. The witness Cheng (PW1) gave only background evidence, to the effect that on 6 October 1993, at the site, some time after 12 noon, a man aged about 30 came, claiming to be the Tor Dee of the village and wanted money. He asked for the person in charge and Cheng (PW1) gave him a phone number and he left. Then about a week later Cheng was introduced to a Mr Lau and they waited at the site for the man who had claimed to be the Tor Dee. After about 15 minutes a car arrived. Two men got out, one of them being the man who had gone to the site on the first occasion. That was in effect the sum total of this witness' testimony.

4. DPC Lau Chun Man (PW2) testified to the effect that on 8 October 1993 he was at the site posing as the person in charge. Cheng (PW1) was there. At about 4pm a car arrived, two men got out and the two men approached PW2 together. This applicant was identified by PW2 as the passenger in the car. His co-accused D1 was the driver. PW2 asked the two men what they wanted. D1 said they were the Tor Dee and they were No. 14 and demanded protection fees or else the machinery would be smashed. The amount they asked for was $20,000. D1 said that the site would be watched over by "Shek Tau of No. 14" and when asked by PW2 how he could be contacted, he gave PW2 his paging number. DPC Lau (PW2) then pretended to contact his boss for instructions but in fact contacted a Detective Sergeant. A police party came and the two defendants were arrested at the site.

5. The applicant did not testify at his trial. That was his right but it meant however that there was nothing from him to contradict what PW2 had said in evidence. The Judge accepted PW2's testimony.

6. This applicant now claims that he only went to the site with D1 in the car but did not take part in D1's acts of intimidation. However he never supported his story at the trial with any testimony. It is therefore not surprising that the Judge accepted PW2's version of events.

7. There are no valid grounds of appeal. This application must be dismissed.