R. v. TAM TAT YUEN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Magistracy Appeal No. 203 of 1995

___________

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

Bokhary, J.A.:

1. On January 10 this year, before P. Kelly Esq. at the Western Magistracy, the appellant was convicted on two counts of criminal intimidation. He now appeals against those convictions.

2. According to the prosecution evidence, the appellant - apparently unhappy with the lack of speed with which he was dealt with by a customs officer and a senior customs officer at the arrival hall of the Hong Kong and Macau Ferry Terminus - intimidated them by making some reference to a triad society connection of his and by threatening to have them beaten up, doing so to frighten them and succeeding in frightening them.

3. According to the appellant, he had not done anything of the kind. And his case was essentially that he was treated rudely by those two officers who, in order to baulk any complaint which he might make of against them for their rudeness, fabricated a case against him.

4. The issue was essentially and eminently one for the trial Magistrate by whom the witnesses were seen and heard. The Magistrate was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had behaved as the prosecution witnesses said.

5. Three written grounds of appeal have been filed by the appellant in person. The first ground reads as follows:-

"The learned trial Magistrate erred in law by his finding that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were frightened as a result of 'Sun Yee On' was mentioned (p.23 and p.29):-

(a) P.W.1 and P.W.2 could not possible be frightened when the learned Magistrate was in doubt as to the true account of what was said during the utterance of 'Sun Yee On'.

(PW1 and PW2 were the customs officer and the senior customs officer respectively.)

6. This ground fails on the facts. The Magistrate was not sure exactly what had been said about a triad connection. And that is why he did not convict on the count of claiming to be a member of a triad society. He was, however, satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, coupled with some reference to a triad connection of his, there had been threats by the applicant of having the two officers beaten up.

7. The second ground of the appeal is as follows:-

"P.W.1 and P.W.2 were trained disciplinary officers and could not be threatened in anyway during the course of carrying duties."

8. That does not make sense on the face of it. But I take it to mean that it was impossible that men in their position would have been frightened by threats such these. I do not see how it can be said that no customs officer or senior customs officer would be frightened by threats of this kind. Some may have the fortitude not to feel any fear at all. But many, maybe most, would feel some real apprehension of harm. These two officers said that they were frightened. And they were believed. This ground of appeal cannot succeed.

9. The fourth and final ground reads as follows:-

"In all the circumstances, the convictions passed upon the appellant are unsafe and unsatisfactory."

10. That is a thoroughly general ground without any support whatsoever. It cannot succeed.

11. The appeal is dismissed.