R. v. WU NGAI MAN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 436
(Criminal)

_____________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Penlington, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

2. Mrs. Panesar appeared for the applicant in respect of his application for leave to appeal against sentence only as legal aid had been refused in respect of his conviction. He was therefore unrepresented in that application.

3. The Crown's case was that, on 28th September 1993, a Mr. Ithihad was working in his office in Peking Road when two men came in to see him. One was the applicant. The other man was a Mr. Chin, who spoke in Chinese and the applicant interpreted. Mr. Ithihad was shown four photocopies of cheques drawn, it was alleged, by his brother in favour of a company in Canton. He was asked to pay the total amount of those cheques, some $780,000. Mr. Ithihad told them he did not know anybody in Canton and they had better ask his brother. Mr. Chin then spoke and the applicant translated to the effect that he had to be responsible for the cheques or they would harm him. They said they had a revolver in a brown bag and Mr. Ithihad became very frightened. He reported the matter to his lawyer who in turn told him to go to the police which he did.

4. On 5th October at about 1 p.m., the applicant went to Mr. Ithihad's office where the police were waiting for him and arrested him.

5. It was the applicant's case that he was acting purely as an interpreter for Chin when they went to see Mr. Ithihad on 28th September. He did not say that he would harm or kill him and he did not say there was a revolver in the brown bag. He said the conversation with Mr. Ithihad had been quite friendly and some agreement had been made for the handing over of goods to the value of US$30,000. Mr. Ithihad said he would have to discuss the balance with his brother.

6. The trial judge said that he accepted Mr. Ithihad's evidence, who he found to be an honest witness, and he did not accept that of the defendant who he found to be evasive. He said he was satisfied that the applicant was not acting purely as an interpreter but was a party to the demands made. He found it inexplicable that the applicant would go to Mr. Ithihad's office on 5th October to collect money if he was merely acting as Chin's interpreter.

7. We are satisfied that the trial judge was entitled to come to the conclusion that the applicant was not acting purely as an interpreter but was a party to threats made to Mr. Ithihad and the conviction is safe and satisfactory.

8. As regards sentence, Mrs. Panesar submitted that the judge had not taken into account the applicant's clear record that this was not a case of loan sharking or was in any way triad related. So far as the applicant knew, this was a legitimate claim made against Mr. Ithihad's brother and they were entitled to use strong language in order to obtain payment. No violence had actually been used.

9. The judge imposed a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment and having considered the arguments put forward by Mrs. Panesar on behalf of the applicant, we do not consider that that sentence was wrong or calls for our intervention. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is accordingly also dismissed.