R. v. TO KA LOK

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 460
(Criminal)

______________

______________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

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

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against nine convictions for offences of robbery, false imprisonment, criminal intimidation and theft.

2. All the offences arise out of the same incident. The victims together with others were playing mahjong at a rice shop at Nai Wai which is in the vicinity of Tuen Mun.

3. The principal witness was PW1. She was a 15 year old part-time student. She had taken part in the mahjong game. The applicant and a man referred to as Tai Ngan Chai asked PW1 to go outside with them. Tai Ngan Chai told her that he had lost $2000 and demanded repayment from her. The applicant also demanded money. PW1 refused to pay. She was then told that she had to raise the money and that she would not be allowed to leave until the money was paid.

4. According to her evidence the applicant told her to go into the rice shop and try to get the money. She did so and while she was there she managed to telephone her mother with her portable telephone and acquaint her of the position. She asked her mother to make a report to the police.

5. The applicant and Tai Ngan Chai then told PW1 and two men to go outside. Money was also demanded from them. The applicant threatened them with a pipe and a knife and they were joined by other men. PW1 had some money and a bracelet taken from her and cash and credit cards were taken from the other two men who had come out from the rice shop with her.

6. The other men were threatened with violence if they did not divulge their Personal Identification Numbers (PIN) relating to their bank cards and the stolen credit cards.

7. The men divulged these details and the applicant and Tai Ngan Chai then left in a car to attempt to extract money from the various bank accounts. They left their accomplices to guard PW1 and the other two men. The applicant and Tai Ngan Chai later returned having apparently been partially successful in their endeavours.

8. At this juncture the police arrived and arrested the accomplices. The applicant and Tai Ngan Chai succeeded in escaping arrest.

9. PW1's evidence was to a considerable extent corroborated by the evidence of the other victims. Although the trial judge, Deputy Judge Brazier was mindful of some inconsistencies.

10. The case which was put to these witnesses in cross-examination was that there had been a dispute between all the parties concerned and this arose out of an allegation that the victims had cheated at mahjong.

11. However the applicant did not go into the witness box or call any witnesses to support this suggestion.

12. The applicant was identified by PW1 after a direct confrontation. He had previously declined to take part in an identification parade.

13. The other incriminating evidence against the applicant was the presence of his finger prints on one of the withdrawal slips which related to moneys being extracted from the machines after the victims had divulged their PIN.

14. The judge carefully weighed and analysed all of the relevant evidence. He was satisfied that the appropriate level that the applicant was guilty as charged on all nine counts.

15. In his grounds of appeal the applicant claims that the judge was prejudiced against him and was too hasty in deciding the case.

16. Before us the applicant complained that the judge believed the prosecution evidence and this was unfair to him. There is no merit whatever in this application and it is dismissed.