THE QUEEN v. WONG KING CHIU

__________________

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Barker, J.A. :

1. We granted the Appellant leave to appeal against his conviction, treated the hearing of the application as, the appeal, allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence. We now give our reasons for so doing.

2. The Appellant, WONG King-chiu, to whom I shall refer hereinafter as D3 was one of three Defendants who appeared before the Victoria District Court. There were four charges. The first, against all three Defendants was one of conspiracy to rob. The second and third against respectively D1 and D2, were for possession of an offensive weapon, namely in each case a folding knife. The fourth charge was against D3 alone, and was for going equipped for stealing, it being alleged that, not being at his place of abode, he had with him an article for use in the course of or in connection with theft, namely one pair of nylon stockings.

3. At about 4 a.m. on the 3rd March 1985 all three Defendants were stopped at a road block on Castle Peak Road, and they were searched. Dl and D2 were each found to have on them a folding knife, concealed in leather wallets which were in the inner pockets of their jackets, D3 had in his trouser pocket a nylon panty hose. All three gave explanations for their possession of these articles, D3's being that he had taken the panty hose from his son who was playing with it and had forgotten to give it to his wife.

4. The police, being unsatisfied with these explanations arrested the Defendants. They were taken to the police station and handed over to the C.I.D., by whom they were questioned at great length, but (according to the Reasons for Verdict) "they drew blanks eventually." The reasons go on, surprisingly, "they all made confession statements setting out the parts they each played."

5. The Judge was not satisfied as to the voluntary nature of the confession statements and ruled them inadmissible. Similarly, he refused to accept the evidence of the police concerning alleged oral admissions made by D3 to them. In the result he acquitted all three Defendants of the conspiracy charge.

6. During the course of the trial, D3, in evidence gave a different explanation for his possession of the nylon panty hose, namely that he had it to disguise his face when he went to settle an old score with a Mr. Ng. The Judge, as he was entitled to do, rejected both explanations given by D3.

7. The Reasons for Verdict continue:

"The evidence supporting the remaining charges is overwhelming. I accept the evidence of the police where it is in conflict with that of the defence. The explanations offered are rejected. I find the facts support the charges. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt."

8. But what police evidence did the Judge accept where it was in conflict with that of the defence? It is abundantly clear that he rejected a great deal of police evidence which the Defendants disputed. The Reasons are silent. Furthermore, once the Judge had rejected D3's explanations as to his possession of the panty hose, but had further dismissed the conspiracy charge, the fact that D3 was found in the company of two men armed with offensive weapons becomes irrelevant. The fact is that there was no evidence whatsoever as to why D3 was in possession of the panty hose, and therefore no evidence on which he could be convicted.

9. Unfortunately, we cannot leave the case there. The Reasons for Verdict were virtually unintelligible. It is abundantly clear that before signing them the trial Judge had not taken the trouble to correct either the mistyping or the incorrect punctuation. We quote two examples. The spelling and punctuation are his, not ours.

10. This Court has said time and again that it is the duty of District Judge to check and, if necessary, correct the Reasons for Verdict and Sentence before the papers are sent to the Court of Appeal. The Court, and the parties, are entitled to have proper, and properly punctuated Reasons for Verdict and Sentence. We did not get them in this case.