HKSAR v. SIU HOK YUN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1997, No. 390
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

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

1. The Applicant was charged with four counts of robbery occurring between 18th December 1996 and 14th January 1997. After a trial in the District Court before Deputy Judge Lung he was acquitted on the first three counts and convicted on the fourth. He now seeks leave to appeal against this conviction.

2. All of the alleged robberies were lift robberies which occurred at the Lam Tin Estate.

3. According to the prosecution two police officers were on duty at the estate on 16th January. They were investigating a blackmail complaint.

4. The officers saw the Applicant and intercepted him. They made enquiry of him concerning the blackmail. Just as they were about to release him an elderly lady approached them and identified the Applicant as being the man who had robbed her in a lift on 14th January. She had made a report to the police of this robbery. According to police officers the Applicant then admitted that he had committed the robbery and asked to be given a chance. He was taken back to the police station. The police officer who had made a post recording of the Applicant's admission then invited the Applicant to sign it. He declined to do so.

5. Subsequent to this the Applicant was alleged to have made under caution inculpatory statements in relation to all of the robberies.

6. The judge held a voir dire. For the reasons he gave he declined to admit the cautioned statements as evidence. However he was satisfied at the appropriate level that the Applicant had made the verbal admission that he had robbed the lady victim two days previously and this admission was admissible.

7. In this connection the judge attached weight to the lady's evidence as well as the evidence of the police. He rejected the defence's evidence on the voir dire for the reasons he gave.

8. At the trial itself the Applicant put forward an alibi for the afternoon of the 14th. In addition to giving evidence himself he called two witnesses. Both were fellow employees. The judge rejected the evidence of Mr To. There was a significant and unexplained discrepancy between the contents of the statement he had given to the police and the evidence he gave in court. The other witness Mr Tong was a much more reliable witness. However, the problem with his evidence was that it could not necessarily be tied in with the crucial time.

9. At the end of the day the judge was satisfied that the prosecution case had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

10. In his grounds of appeal the Applicant referred to difficulties which were encountered by the victim when she gave evidence. These related to the dialect she was familiar with. It would appear that these difficulties were resolved without any criticism being attached to the witness.

11. In the second ground of appeal the Applicant repeated his alibi and complained that it was unfair of the judge not to accept the evidence. In his supplemental grounds he referred to the rejection of his statement and complained about the admission of his oral statement when he was identified by the lady victim. This is of course an entirely separate matter.

12. He also complained of the fact that no identification parade was held. In the circumstances of this case an identification parade for the fourth charge would have been inappropriate and redundant.

13. Before us the Applicant said that the judge failed to consider the statement given by his boss to the police. His solicitor had been aware of the position but had not taken matters further.

14. There is nothing in any of the matters raised by the Applicant. The conviction was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory and this application is dismissed.