HKSAR v. LEUNG YAT MING

HCMA245/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.245 OF 2003

(ON APPEAL FROM STCC 1480 OF 2002)

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant in this case faced a single charge of possessing a false instrument, contrary to section 75(2) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200. He denied the charge but was convicted after trial and fined. He now appeals against conviction.

2. The facts which led to the charge are straightforward. A police officer PC 49279 came across a motorcycle whose luggage compartment had been ransacked. The contents were scattered on the ground. As the officer inspected the items, he found three parking permits for the Police Officers' Club, each bearing the registration number of that motorcycle. The three permits were all forged.

3. When the appellant arrived at the scene, he confirmed that it was his motorcycle and the officer told the court he admitted he had made the permits on a computer the previous month. The officer said the appellant told him he had made the permits for fun, that he had previously worked at the club and that although he had intended to use the permits when he parked on the roadside, in the event he had decided not to use them and had left them in the luggage compartment of the motorcycle.

4. The appellant gave evidence and denied making all admissions attributed to him by the officer.

5. Today, he raises a number of grounds of appeal, only one of which, in my view, has any significance. The officer told the court, among other things, that the appellant had told him that he had worked at the Police Officers' Club between 1994 and 1997. Admitted evidence from the Assistant Manager of the club proved this to be untrue that the appellant had not worked at the club during that period. Given that the appellant had all along denied making the verbal admissions attributed to him he had written the words "statement is incorrect" in the officer's notebook when asked to sign it this discrepancy assumes some importance.

6. Unfortunately, the magistrate does not, in the Statement of Findings, indicate how he has dealt with the point. Indeed, he does not mention it at all. A magistrate does not have to state all of the law applicable to the case or to review the whole of the evidence. He should give a short statement of his reasons and what is required will vary from case to case.

7. In The Queen v. Chong Kam Sau, HCMA859/1985, O'Conner J said the following :

"The reasons for verdict should in manner appropriate to the circumstances of the case, illustrate the salient points in the case and demonstrate that the evidence has been evaluated. Significant insistencies and conflicts should be dealt with in such manner as to indicate how those matters were resolved. There is no simple formula for what ought to be in a judgment as it must be related to the circumstances of the particular case. The magistrate should state his reasons to such an extent as will inform the parties as to how and why the particular verdict was arrived at and furthermore will enable an appellate court performs its duty."

8. Once the magistrate knew from the evidence that the statement attributed to the appellant that he worked at the Police Officers' Club between 1994 and 1997 was wrong, he ought to have considered whether that affected his view on whether the oral admission had been made at all. If he did so, then he should have given some indication, however brief, as to how he dealt with it. The admissions were a vital part of the prosecution evidence. In the absence of any indication of how an important discrepancy was approached I am unable to say that this decision is safe and it must be set aside.