THE QUEEN v. PANG FAI-TONG

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL No. 820 of 1989

________

BETWEEN

_________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The appellant was convicted of attempted theft and was fined $2,000 and sentenced to 4 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months. He appealed against his conviction.

2. Two police officers were on patrol and one of them (PW1) testified that he saw the appellant behind, and to the right of, a woman (PW2). He saw the appellant use his left hand to undo or touch the flap of PW'2 handbag which was hanging from her right shoulder. He said he was diagonally behind her and the appellant to their right, about 6-7 feet away.

3. The other police officer (PW3) said he was to the left of the appellant, about 1 or 2 persons' spaces away. He saw the appellant open the bag with his left hand and insert his right hand in the flap. PW2 was then stationary. At this monent, she turned and the appellant withdrew his left hand, and then withdrew his right hand.

4. PW2 gave evidence that the appellant was very close to her and that his hand could have touched her bag. She found the button to her bag open but she couldn't say whether it had been opened before. She was asked who her it was because the police had told her that the appellant was stealing that she throught he was a thief and she answered in the affirmative. And then out of the blue, right at the end of her cross-examination she made mention of seeing the appellant's hand on her handbag. It was suggested to her she was exaggerating and then she said "If the appellant was not a thief, why was he arrested?"

5. No reliance should have been placed on the evidence of this witness. The magistrate said she corroborated the evidence of the two police officers.

6. The verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory - I allow the appeal and the sentences are set aside.