THE QUEEN v. YAN TIM CHOI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 48 OF 1990

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

BETWEEN

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The appellant was convicted on a charge of assault with intent to prevent lawful apprehension after trial and was fined $2,000. The Magistrate also made an order for the appellant to pay cost of $1,000. The appellant now appeals against conviction and against the award of costs.

2. The Magistrate in this matter, in her statement of findings, directed herself to the discrepancies which appeared to come from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. she dealt fully with those matters and made findings based upon the evidence that she had heard after taking into account those matters.

3. She was of the view that the discrepancies were such as to be insufficient to cause her any problems in accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. I have been taken through these matters again by Mr Chan who appears on behalf of the appellant and I have given consideration to the submissions which he has made. There is, however, nothing in what I had heard to convince me that the verdict in this matter was in any way unsafe or unsatisfactory. The appeal against conviction is therefore dismissed.

4. In respect of the award of cost the Magistrate has the power under section 69(1) of the Magistrates Ordinance to make such order as to costs as he or she may think fit. Quite clearly in this case the Magistrate had heard the witnesses and had the facts before her, and considered the case appropriate for an award as to costs. I see no reason to interfere with the exercise of that discretion and accordingly the appeal against sentence is dismissed.