R. v. WONG PING TONG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 619
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Ching, J.A. (delivering the judgment of the Court):

1. There are three applicants in this case but the 2nd applicant, who has served his sentence and who appears to have been served with notice of this hearing, has not appeared. In the circumstances we dismiss his application for leave to appeal against his conviction.

2. The 1st and 3rd applicants, with the 2nd applicant and another, were charged with having committed a number of offences, all triad related. It is an old story of men claiming to be members of a triad society and of demanding protection money which technically is blackmail. The 3rd applicant was also charged with possession of triad writings. The evidence against them included that of two undercover police officers to whom the claims of triad membership and from whom money was demanded with menaces. In addition, each of the applicants made admissions in cautioned statements which were found to be admissible after trials within the trial. The applicants were convicted of some of the charges and each now applies for leave to appeal against those convictions.

3. The 1st applicant, Wong Ping Tong, was convicted of one charge only, charge 9. The charge was that on 14th July, 1994, at the Hang Fuk Shing Restaurant he claimed to be a member of the 14K triad society. The only real complaints that he had related to the evidence of one of the undercover officers, P.W.1, and the contents of the cautioned statements which he gave. He asserted that P.W.1 had confused him with the 2nd applicant until he had had an opportunity to refresh his memory from his note book. The Judge, however, accepted his evidence. In one of his statements, Exhibit 11, in answer to the caution he said,

"I understand. Yes, I did say I belong to the Hau group of the 14K."

That is a clear admission that he made the claim. The 1st applicant disputes both the voluntariness and the contents of his statements. He says that he did not know what he was signing and was forced to sign. At the same time he points out that in one statement he had added in his own handwriting words to the effect that the matter had nothing to do with him. That is true, but it was written in response to a caution in relation to blackmail, a charge of which he was acquitted. These matters were all questions of fact for the Judge. There is nothing in the application of the 1st applicant and his application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

4. The 3rd applicant was convicted of four charges. Charges 2, 13 and 14 relate to the same incident on 31st May, 1994 at the Vietnam Restaurant. In relation to charge 13, the evidence of the undercover officers was that at that time and place he had claimed to be a member of the 14K triad society. He had demanded protection money from them, the subject of charge 2, and he had been paid it. He gave a receipt for the money specifying that the money received was protection money and the Judge rejected his claim that those words were added to the document after his signature. He says now that he signed the document in a hurry thinking that it was for the purposes of applying for a job on a construction site. The undercover officers had pretended that they were interested in joining a triad society and this perhaps explains why the words appeared on the receipt. Charge 14 alleged that the 3rd applicant had given to one of the undercover officers a poem. Charge 15, of which the 3rd applicant was also convicted, related to the possession of another poem which he had at the Hang Fuk Shing Restaurant on 16th June, 1994. There was expert evidence, accepted by the Judge, that these were triad writings.

5. The 3rd applicant complains that P.W.1 was found to be an honest witness although there were discrepancies between his evidence and that of other witnesses. An example he gave was that P.W.1 alleged that he was found of using foul language whereas none of the other witnesses gave such evidence. That does not show that P.W.1 was lying. The 3rd applicant also points out that P.W.1 made a mistaken identification in Court. That is so, but it was a matter expressly taken into account by the Judge. The 3rd applicant denies that he had ever claimed to be a member of the 14K triad society and that he had ever signed a statement to that effect. He claimed that he had never seen the statements until he was in court. These and other matters raised by the 3rd applicant were all matters for the trial Judge and it has not been shown that the Judge erred in any way or that the trial was in any way unsafe or unsatisfactory. His application for leave to appeal against his convictions is therefore also dismissed.