|
HCMA000591/1995
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
MAGISTRACY APPEAL
NO. 591 OF 1995
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
THE QUEEN |
Respondent |
|
|
|
|
AND |
|
|
|
|
|
CHAN WAI HUNG |
Appellant |
---------------
Coram : Hon Duffy, J. in Court
Date of hearing : 25 January 1996
Date of handing down judgment : 2 February 1996
------------------------
J U D G M E N T
------------------------
Duffy, J.:
1. This was an appeal against a conviction for indecent assault. The facts in this case, sadly too common in Hong Kong, were that the victim of the case was walking in Queen's Road Central at its junction with Pottinger Street at 11:40 p.m. on 9th September 1994. She was accompanied by her husband. They were walking abreast of each other. As they approached Pottinger Street they were chatting and the Appellant bumped against the victim and put his hand on her breast. The woman loudly complained of this to her husband who apprehended the Appellant and held him until the police arrived.
2. The Appellant's main complaint in this case was that counsel representing him in the trial below did not put his instructions fully. In particular he was aggrieved by his lawyer's failure to cross-examine the victim's husband on the matter of his assault upon the Appellant after he had apprehended him. I considered this to be a red herring or irrelevance, as it was an event that occurred after the alleged indecent assault, and could not have affected the learned Magistrate's decision. Not unnaturally, in any event, the victim's husband would be upset at the fact that his wife had been indecently assaulted in his presence.
3. The Appellant also complained that his counsel had not put to the witnesses for the Crown that he was carrying a T-shirt under his left arm. He made an application that further evidence be led from him on the matter. I refused the application. I did not consider the matter to be sufficiently important to warrant interference with the learned Magistrate's decision in this case, which was clearly based on the evidence of the principal witness who was the victim in the case, and who the learned Magistrate believed after warning himself of the dangers of conviction on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim in a sexual case. He said :
"The Court was sure she had given a truthful and accurate account of what happened."
4. I therefore dismissed the appeal, there being no other ground of any merit.
Representation:
Mr Stanley Chan, S.C.C., for Crown
Mr G. Surman (Siao, Wen & Leung) for Appellant
|
(J.M. Duffy) |
|
Judge of the High Court |
|