THE QUEEN v. LOW LING HANG

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.1281 OF 1990

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

BETWEEN

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant was convicted by Mr Townsley at South Kowloon Magistrates Court on two charges : (1) Permitting a girl under 16 years of age to be on the premises for the purposes of prostitution, (2) Living on the earnings of prostitution. He was sentenced to a total of 18 months imprisonment.

2. The only issue was identity. The girl was seen leaving the premises in the company of the appellant. The only question was whether he was the person who had introduced her to another man for the purpose of sexual intercourse.

3. The critical witness was a girl of 16, Ng Ching-yu. She said in evidence "I don't know if I can recognise that man again, as I've only met him once. I look around the Court room now. I cannot identify the man. I don't remember him."

4. Nor could she remember his name, but she said it was not the one recorded in her statement. She went on to say however, "I saw an identity card belonging to him at the Police Station, but I only took a glance at it, as it was put at a distance, far away from me."

5. Police Constable 14728 said he showed the appellant's identity card to Miss Ng in the Police Station in the absence of the appellant. Despite defence objection the witness was then allowed to say that the girl told him that the man whose photograph was on the identity card was the man who introduced her to a customer. She was not taken to confront the appellant because she was frightened and he thought she would identify him in court.

6. Although probably admissible, this evidence tends to reduce the reliability of the identification of the appellant as the introducer. Such practice has been the subject of adverse comment in the English courts. See for example R v. Haslam (1925)19 CAR 59.

7. Hearsay evidence was given by Woman Police Constable 18980 as to what Miss Ng had said on the premises in the absence of the appellant. Later she pointed at the appellant, who was in another room, but she did not say anything.

8. In view of this inadmissible evidence and the danger of wrong identification apparent on the record, I was satisfied that the appeal should be allowed and the convictions quashed. I should add that counsel for the Crown did not seek to support the convictions.