HKSAR v. WONG KIN SUN

1997, No.418
(Criminal)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Stuart-Moore, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. On 9th July 1997, this Applicant was convicted of two charges in the District Court following a trial before Judge H.C. Wong.

2. The first charge related to criminal damage caused on or about 13th August 1996, to Unit 1, 1st floor, Po Kai Mansion, 12-20 Wo Yi Hop Road, belonging to Wong Kwan-tat. The second charge, as amended, against the Applicant and also his wife D2, was for theft on or about 12th August 1996, at the same premises and related to 12 water heaters, 6 air-conditioners, 2 air-conditioner radiators, 3 sinks and toilet bowls, 8 fire extinguishers, two telephone sets, 10 television sets and a variety of other items belonging to Wong Kwan-tat. The damage and the loss together amounted to about $1.4m.

3. The premises had been bought in 1993 by Wong Kwan-tat (PW1). He renovated them into a 38 room guest house which he then rented to the Applicant (D1).

4. In July 1995, D1 was in arrears of rental and legal proceedings were commenced to terminate D1's tenancy. In August 1996, vacant possession was ordered.

5. On 11th August 1996, D1, D2 and some of the staff moved out the property which is referred to in charge 2. They left in the small hours of 13th August 1996, having caused extensive damage. The whole premises were flooded, causing damage to carpets and walls. Drain pipes were filled with cement. Sinks and cisterns were broken. Water pipes had been dismantled. The closed circuit telephone was broken. There was other damage to a false ceiling and to electric wires, a switch box and to various other parts of the premises.

6. On 29th August 1996, the Applicant gave himself up. He made four statements. He admitted dismantling some of the water pipes and agreed that he had taken away some of the fittings, but he claimed these were originally bought by him. He also said that he had taken about 30 television sets to his own office, but staff from there said they had seen nothing of the sort.

7. The judge described the prosecution case as "overwhelming" and she said, in the course of her Reasons for Verdict:

"I find the prosecution's evidence overwhelming against the 1st defendant. The premises, even without the flooding, were left in a deplorable state with damages to the drains, fresh and salt water pipes, wiring and ceiling boards, not to mention the complete demolition of the bathroom in room 81, and the havoc left by the removal of the toilet bowls and wash-basins with the sawn drains and pipes exposed - yet the flooding only made it worse."

8. The Applicant now appeals against his conviction. At one stage he had employed lawyers although he has been unable to fund legal representation at this stage.

9. The original grounds of application were concerned with errors which were said to have been made by the judge in her Reasons for Verdict by failing to evaluate the evidence properly which had been adduced by the defence. In particular, the judge drew a number of inferences which, it is said, were not irresistible although the judge found that they were and, in particular, those which related to the intention of the Applicant in the commission of criminal damage and theft.

10. Today the Applicant has added to those grounds by dealing with a number of evidential matters which it is not for us to go into as these were dealt with in the course of the trial. We are not here to re-try issues that the judge dealt with in the District Court. He does, however, complain that it may be that the judge did not fully evaluate the matters which had been put forward in his defence. We have the benefit of the Reasons for Verdict before us, and it is clear that the judge fully understood the nature of the defence and took into account what had been said. We do not agree with the points that the Applicant has raised. The trial judge was quite right in saying that the evidence was overwhelming. There were no other possible verdicts on either of these charges than those which are recorded.

11. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.