HKSAR v. GHULAM ALI and Others

1997, No.99
(Criminal)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

________________

________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Sears, J. (delivering the judgment of the Court)

1. The 1^st and 3^rd applicants, Ghulam Ali and Mohammad Jahangir, together with a third person, were convicted before H.H. Judge Surman on 27 January 1997; Ghulam Ali of two offences : assault occasioning actual bodily harm and robbery and Mohammad Jahangir of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. For the assault, the sentence was eight months for each applicant and for the robbery offence, Ghulam Ali received 12 months concurrent. They are currently serving sentences of imprisonment and we are told applications to appeal have been lodged in respect of those matters.

2. The brief facts of this particular case are that in November 1995, a number of Pakistani and Chinese people boarded a lighter in Tseung Kwan O and asked a Mr Irfan Hussain if they could store certain goods on board. When he refused, a dispute broke out and he was attacked by the five Pakistanis who hit him, he alleged, with pipes. He suffered bruises on his face and minor cut on his hands, chest and thighs. Ghulam Ali, who was the 1^st defendant denied taking part in that assault, the 3^rd defendant gave no evidence. Both of these applicants were picked out on identification parades in 1996.

3. As far as the robbery was concerned in November 1995 when Mr Irfan Hussain was on his way to the police to help with their enquiries, Ghulam Ali together with the 2^nd defendant intercepted him and threatened him. He snatched the pager and they both ran away. He was subsequently arrested at Kai Tak Airport.

4. The judge in his Reasons for Verdict dealt with all the relevant matters, analysed the evidence that was given and came to the conclusion so that he was sure that both of these applicants had committed the offences with which they were charged. We can find nothing which suggests that the Reasons for Verdict are in any way flawed. Both applications for leave to appeal against conviction are refused.

5. The sentences, as I have said were eight months for the assault and for Ghulam Ali, 12 months for the robbery concurrent. The sentence of eight months was, if anything, somewhat on the low side. We cannot see any reason to disturb that. As far as the robbery sentence was concerned, again, in our judgment, there is no way in which we can interfere with that sentence. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively with the current prison sentences. The applications for leave to appeal against sentence are also dismissed.