R. v. WONG CHING MING and Another

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No.510
(Criminal)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Bokhary, J.A.:

1. This is application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

2. On July 7 this year, before Deputy Judge Geiser in the District Court, this applicant, a man in his early 20's, was convicted on one charge of robbery and one charge of remaining without authority having landed unlawfully.

3. He was sentenced on the same day at a total of 41/2 years' imprisonment by way of a term of that duration for the robbery and a concurrent term of 15 months for the remaining.

4. His grounds of appeal against conviction read as follows:

" I was convicted on July 7 by the District Court. For the verdict imposed on me by the trial judge was prejudiced, I advance the following grounds:

1. The evidence of the Crown witness had contradictions and the defence lawyer had proved it in court.

2. Unlawful procedures were involved in the police's identification parade. The witness concerned had admitted it in court.

3. During the trial, the judge produced no evidence to prove my offence.

4. The facts of the case were wholly framed by the police. They were known clearly from the evidence of the police presented to court. And the defence lawyer proved everything in court."

Turning to his grounds of appeal against sentence, what he has lodged in that regard reads as follows:

" I was convicted of robbery and illegal entry by the District Court on 7 July. I have lodged an appeal regarding the first offence of robbery. I also thought I deserve the punishment for the offence of illegal entry. But on the basis that I confessed during trial and I was young and innocent in addition to my first illegal entry, I was sentenced heavily by the trial judge. It is hoped the Registrar would give me a chance to appeal against sentence."

5. Before us, he asked us to grant him a retrial. And as far as sentence is concerned, he said that he was innocent and so his sentence must be unjust.

6. A third thing he raised with us is the question of $200 which the trial judge had ordered be returned to him but which has not been returned to him yet. Although strictly speaking this is not a matter for us, we thought it right to help the applicant if we could. Mr Pang for the prosecution has very kindly looked into this matter; and he informs us that the money is being withheld pending this application but will be returned as soon as it is determined.

7. The case against the applicant and his co-accused was that they had robbed a taxi driver.

8. The taxi driver picked them out at an identification parade some 11 days after the incident.

9. Shortly after the incident and near to where it happened, the police found the applicant with a watch which the taxi driver recognised as his watch taken from him by the robbers.

10. The judge, who unlike us saw and heard all the witnesses including the applicant, was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the reliability of the taxi driver's evidence.

11. As far as sentence is concerned, the judge recognised that this was a case in which little or any violence was used and that no weapon was either used or displayed.

12. At the same time, he recognised that taxi drivers, especially those who ply for hire late at night, are particularly vulnerable and entitled to the protection of the courts.

13. All things considered, we come to the conclusion that there is no basis for interfering either with this conviction or with this sentence; and leave to appeal against conviction is refused as is leave to appeal against sentence.

14. As far as the applicant's $200 is concerned, there need now be no further delay in the return of that money to him.