R. v. LING WAI CHUN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO.316 OF 1995

___________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1. The appellant was found guilty of one count of theft of $103. She now appeals against conviction.

2. It appears that on the day in question she was a worker in a cosmetic company in Lockhart Road. There were, according to the witnesses, some previous occasions of theft in the company and as a result, PW1 saw fit to record the serial number of some of the bank notes and have some of the coins marked. On the day in question, she found out that a $100 note and some coins which had been marked and recorded missing in her wallet. There was some evidence that the co-workers in the company had been searched a few times during the course of the day but before the police were called. However, nothing was found. Later on that day, the $100 notes and some coins were found inside the wallet of the appellant. The note bore a serial number which tallied with one of the numbers recorded by PW1.

3. I think what followed after the discovery was that the appellant was confronted by the proprietress and some of the colleagues and she was, to say the least, forced to sign some sort of note saying that she admitted to theft and she was to pay compensation to her colleagues. She was also refused part of her salary. I must say, this is not a very proper way of doing things by the proprietress and the co-workers. However, it does not affect the evidence that the marked $100 note and the coins were found in the wallet of the appellant.

4. I was given by the appellant who was not represented 11 points in this appeal as to how illogical the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was. I must say the appellant had a few points that might cast some light on how the proprietress and the workers responded to a case of theft. It is a matter between the appellant and these co-workers. It may be that she could take civil action to recover what she had been forced to pay to the employer and the co-workers. I do not think they are relevant to this appeal. The only other thing which was mentioned in submission was that her statement to the police had not been adduced in court. It appears that the appellant was represented in the court below and she had her rights explained to her and she elected not to give evidence. Nor did she, through Counsel, present any document or other evidence before the court. Those statements made to the police were mere denials of any involvement in the alleged theft and I do not think it would have any bearing on the matters before the learned magistrate. There is sufficient evidence before him in the form of oral evidence and documents for him to draw the conclusion that the charge was proved. In fact, the learned magistrate had dismissed two other similar charges against her as a result of his refusal to accept any verbal admission alleged to have been made by the appellant.

5. In the circumstances, I think the appellant did have a fair trial and the learned magistrate had come to the correct conclusion. The appeal is therefore dismissed.