THE QUEEN v. POON CHI-PING (D6)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Kempster, J.:

1. On 25th January 1984 POON Chi-ping was found guilty by a jury of handling stolen goods and seeks leave to appeal against conviction on five grounds which are:

2. When asked on 25th May what further reasons, if any, he relied on Poon said he only received notice of hearing on 21st May and asked for and was granted an adjournment to instruct a lawyer. Today he said he had not been able to afford to do so but added that he still did not understand why he was convicted.

"According to the evidence I did not have possession . of so large an amount of property as charged nor did I know who the owner was. A person who does not know the facts should be acquitted and any doubt should be resolved to the advantage of the accused."

He then commented on the evidence called at the trial and purported to give fresh evidence as well as accusing judge and jury of bias at the police of assault. He appeared to misunderstand the respective functions of judge and jury.

3. I repeat what was said earlier in relation to the terms of the summing-up when considering the appeal of LUI Pak-bun. For the same reasons we find that there is no substance in the assertion that the judge had misled the jury.

4. On the 1st of June 1983 at 11.15 in the evening a taxi had been stopped in Shamshuipo and POON Chi-ping and LEUNG Chi-hung were found in it together with two bags of valuable fur coats. Station Sergeant Chan told the jury that he asked Poon what was in the bags and received the answer "Clothes''. Further,in Poon's presence, Leung said that the clothes were his. In the course of questioning by the police Poon gave, and acknowledge in writing, this answer:

"In fact, I did suspect that the quantity of fur coats was unlawfully obtained. However, I really do not know how he obtained them."

The learned judge, having reminded  the jury of the circumstances in which the polythene bags full of furs had been loaded into the taxi and how this applicant was, in due course, paid for his services, directed them in these words:

"But in his case members of the jury the only question is whether he knew or believed the furs were stolen when he helped load them on to the taxi not whether he was suspicious or turned a blind eye or anything of that kind You must ask yourselves whether you find it as a fact that he knew that the bags contained furs and he knew or believed that they were stolen."

5. When the jury came back for further directions the learned judge said (p 52 read). These directions cannot be impeached and, by finding Poon guilty, the jury were clearly satisfied that he did know or believe that the goods which he had helped to load and had handled were stolen. There was, we are satisfied, evidence which entitled the jury so to find. The application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.

6. POON Chi-ping was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment. At the time of conviction he was aged 26 years. His only previous conviction was a fine for remaining in Hong Kong unlawfully. We consider the sentence to be within acceptable parameters and cannot say that the judge erred in principle. Poon gave no written reason why we should interfere but today said only $200 redounded to his advantage. We dismiss his application for leave to appeal against sentence. 3 months will not count towards sentence.