R. v. WONG PING

No. 481 of 1995
(Criminal)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

____________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Bewley, J. : (delivering the judgment of the Court)

1. The applicant was convicted of robbery and of remaining in Hong Kong without authority by Deputy Judge Andrée-Wiltens in the District Court. His plea of guilty to the alternative charge of handling goods stolen in the robbery was not accepted by the Crown.

2. On 11th December, 1994, the victim in the robbery charge was assaulted, threatened and tied up by about 10 men, many of whom were armed with knives, while he was washing rice outside his hut in Fanling. They stole clothes, money, jewellery and other articles.

3. Next morning a party of police raided a stone house in Taipo and arrested 11 illegal immigrants including the applicant. It was an admitted fact that the applicant was in possession of a blue shirt. This shirt was identified by the robbery victim as having been stolen during the robbery. Two of the other arrested persons were also in possession of property identified as having been stolen on that occasion. The victim's identification of his property was not challenged at trial.

4. The arresting officer testified that he found a blue cap inside a bag being carried by the applicant at the time of his arrest. This was also identified as his property by the robbery victim. The finding of the cap was challenged by the defence. When he was interviewed by the police the applicant denied robbery and possession of the cap.

5. The applicant did not give evidence or call witnesses. Nor did the other defendants.

6. The judge accepted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and was satisfied that, in the absence of an explanation how the stolen property came to be in the possession of the applicant and the other defendants, the only inference to be drawn from the evidence was that they took part in the robbery.

7. The applicant's first ground of appeal is that he had never seen the blue cap before it was presented in court. That was an issue of fact for the judge.

8. The only other ground of appeal of substance is that it was dangerous and unfair to infer guilt from this evidence. We are satisfied that, in the absence of an explanation for possession of such recently stolen property, the only reasonable inference to be drawn was that the applicant had taken part in the robbery.

9. The application is dismissed.