HKSAR v. HON CHAU YUEN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1998, No.184
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Stuart-Moore, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 16th March 1998, this Applicant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, blackmail and false imprisonment, following a trial before Judge Christie in the District Court. The judge later sentenced the Applicant to a total of 3 years' imprisonment. The Applicant now seeks leave to appeal against conviction.

2. In his written grounds, the Applicant complains principally of discrepancies in the evidence of the individual witnesses and as between different witnesses. He also complains that as PWs 1, 2 and 5 were all from the same family, their evidence may have been biased. He complains that the judge should have given him the benefit of the doubt and, again, feels that there may have been bias on the part of the judge against him.

3. Today, he has raised a number of other matters which are not relevant to our consideration because this court is not here to retry a case where we have not seen or heard the witnesses. The function of this court is to review the findings of the judge in the lower court. If mistakes have been made, it is this court's duty to deal with them.

4. The victim in all three offences was Chan Hing-man (PW1). Arising from business dealings in the past, the victim was held responsible for the loss of money. It is with that background that the prosecution's case was that the Applicant and four others visited PW1's office to demand immediate payment of $2,000,000. Assaults and threats were made, which were the subject of the first two charges. Some members of PW1's family gave evidence, which in various ways supported aspects of the evidence given by PW1.

5. Charge 3 related to PW1 (and PW2), who were taken to their home by the Applicant and four accomplices. Over the next few days, repeated demands for money to make good the debt allegedly owed by PW1 were made. In the result, PW2 (the victim's father) paid $500,000 on one occasion and $150,000 on another. Later, PW1's parents agreed to sell their home for which they went on to sign an offer and acceptance.

6. In due course the matter was reported to the police. When the evidence of these events was given in court, it is quite right to say that there were several discrepancies and inconsistencies and contradictions which counsel for the Applicant was able to highlight. The judge, in his Reasons for Verdict, devoted several pages to this topic and was clearly aware of them.

7. It was the judge's task to evaluate the evidence of the witnesses that he had seen and heard. It is clear that he set about that task with clarity. No bias of any kind is demonstrated and he was fully entitled, in the judgment of this court, to come to the conclusion which he reached namely, that the Applicant was guilty of these charges based on evidence that he found reliable and truthful which came from the victim and his family.

8. There is no merit whatsoever in this application and it is dismissed. As there has been no merit in the application, we shall order that three months of the period served awaiting this hearing shall not count towards the Applicant's sentence.