R. v. WONG KIN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 1022 OF 1995

___________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1. This was an appeal against a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. On the first hearing of his appeal on 23rd November, the Appellant who appeared in person claimed that he had no contact with the Duty Lawyer Scheme prior to his trial in the Magistrates Court. He claimed that the first conversation between himself and his solicitor came during the cross-examination of the principal Crown witness, when the solicitor sought his instructions. He claimed that he had never before that been interviewed by any member of the Duty Lawyer Scheme and had given no instructions. Naturally I caused this matter to be investigated, and I received affirmations from Mr Chong Chung Hing who had been the solicitor for the Appellant at his trial, and from Miss Chiu Wing Wah who was a Court Liaison Officer with the Duty Lawyer Service. Miss Chiu claimed in her affirmation that she had interviewed the Appellant in her office on the afternoon of 30th March 1995. Mr Chong, the solicitor, in his affirmation claimed that he had defended Mr Wong Kin in his trial on the basis of written instructions which he had received from the Duty Lawyer Scheme. The Duty Lawyer Scheme provided me with a copy of the instructions.

2. I was dismayed to find that these instructions were in English, and did not bear the Appellant's signature. It seems to me to be somewhat unwise for a scheme such as the Duty Lawyer Scheme not to have instructions taken from defendants in their own language, and not to have the defendants sign these instructions. Many problems and difficulties could arise as a result, if that is not done. I would urge that the matter be given careful consideration.

3. I have been surprised and disappointed by opinions credited to members of the Duty Lawyer Scheme, and reported in the press, to the effect that my views on the subject are not really worthy of consideration. I would have thought that any reasonable and responsible consideration of the point would suggest that especially when dealing with criminal matters, and those charged with criminal offences, sensible precautions ought to be taken, so that the risk of unjust recrimination from unsuccessful and disenchanted litigants is kept to a minimum. Years of experience in the field of criminal law has taught me that, at least.

4. So far as the appeal itself is concerned, once I dealt with it on its merits, I found no reason to interfere with the conviction. I dismissed the appeal.