R. v. NG KING CHUNG

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 611
(Criminal)

_________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Mayo, J.A. (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. The applicant was charged with seven offences of burglary and one of robbery and his former lady friend who was the second defendant (D2) was charged with three offences of handling stolen goods. After a trial before Her Honour Judge Chua in the District Court the applicant was convicted of the alternative charge of handling on charges 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8. He appeals against these convictions.

2. A number of burglaries were reported to the police in the months between October 1992 and July 1993 where premises had been broken into and valuables stolen while the occupants were away. The robbery charge differed from the burglaries in as much as the burglar was surprised while on the job and tied up the domestic servants who were at home.

3. In each case a variety of items were stolen and indeed the premises in question were ransacked.

4. On 9 July a police party raided premises at Flat C, 17/F, Kam Fong Building, Mongkok and seized numerous articles which were suspected to be stolen goods. A large quantity of the articles seized were subsequently identified by the victims of the burglaries.

5. Later the same day the applicant was arrested at the Macau Ferry Terminal on his return from Macau. At the time of his arrest he was accompanied by D2.

6. The next day a search was undertaken by the police at Flat 6 on the 6/F of Hoi Chun Court at Aberdeen Centre. More goods were found in this flat which the police suspected have been stolen. Some of them were subsequently identified by victims of the burglary.

7. The defence which was run by the applicant before Judge Chua was that he had not been residing at the premises where the stolen goods were found. According to him D2 was the person in occupation. He accepted that they had prior to May 1993 been living together as man and wife in premises at Aberdeen owned by his father. His father had quarrelled with D2 and insisted that she should move out. She had moved to the room at Mongkok where the stolen goods had been found. He agreed that he had visited the room but denied residing there.

8. So far as the flat at the Aberdeen Centre was concerned D2 had stayed there after her return from Macau.

9. D2 gave contrary evidence. She said that the applicant had indeed been living with her at the Mongkok room and that he had been the person in possession of the articles which had been seized. It can be seen from this that Judge Chua was faced with what is sometimes colloquially referred to as a cut throat defence.

10. In a 24 page judgment Judge Chua gives detailed reasons why she was prepared to accept D2 as a truthful witness and reject the evidence given by the applicant. There can be no doubt that she gave the case most careful consideration and put forward cogent reasons for the conclusions she reached. She was satisfied on the available evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was guilty of handling stolen goods on charges 1, 2 4, 6, 7 and 8. She acquitted D2 on the three charges she was charged with.

11. In his written grounds of appeal the applicant states in general terms that he had not been living at the room in question and claimed that D2 had sought to blame him for the offences.

12. Before us the applicant raised various further matters suggesting that he was not the person who had been in possession of the goods. He also criticised some of the evidence given by some of the witnesses at the trial. In particular he dealt with detailed matters relating to D2 and her credibility.

13. In effect the applicant is repeating the evidence he gave at his trial. We can see no reason to doubt that Judge Chua correctly found the applicant guilty of these offences and that the convictions are no way unsafe or unsatisfactory. The application is therefore dismissed.