THE QUEEN v. LAU CHI CHUNG

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

Kempster, JA :

1. This is the judgment of the court.

2. On 25 May 1989 in the District Court Lau Chi Chung was convicted by His Honour Judge Gall, after trial, on one count of burglary and on a further count of resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Against those convictions he seeks leave to appeal. On 26 May 1989 he submitted a document which in substance complained of the partiality of the judge in accepting the evidence of a police officer, who was the second prosecution witness, rather than his own.

3. In the course of his address to us today the applicant has gone way beyond these grounds and sought to attack the competence of the advocate who represented him at trial. We have heard all that he has said but, as he may or may not appreciate, in order to vitiate a conviction on the basis of the lack of professional skill or competence of an advocate a very heavy onus falls to be discharged by the applicant and such an onus Lau has not come near discharging.

4. The evidence upon which the judge relied and which satisfied him of the defendant's guilt was to the effect that on 19 January 1989 a Madam Tong Cheung had returned to her home at 66 Lai Chi Kok Road to find two men emerging from it and, when she went into her home, had found a number of items missing including jewelry, a walkman radio, some money and, in particular, a Mitsuibishi video cassette recorder which later she identified. She had seen a man in the street adjacent to her home carrying a white plastic bag. That man, seeing himself observed, had run away. She chased him, crying out "Thief!" A police officer joined in the chase. She fell behind. The police officer had seen the woman chasing a particular individual carrying a white bag, had taken up the chase, had seen the man discard the white plastic bag in No. 595 Reclamation Street on the first floor, and later had recovered the bag and in it found the video cassette recorder. The officer eventually caught the man in Shanghai Street and arrested him after a struggle.

5. The defendant's evidence was to the contrary effect, namely that he was pursuing his innocent avocations when arrested without explanation or caution. He even denied that there was any struggle with the police oh his arrest.

6. The trial judge found that Madam Tong and the police officer who had pursued the applicant and arrested him were witnesses of truth. He did not believe the applicant who had not impressed him at all.

7. This was a case which inevitably turned on the judge's impression of the relative credibility of the witnesses. He approached the matter in the correct way and applied the appropriate standard of proof. We can see no grounds for interfering with the conviction. Accordingly the application for leave to appeal against it is dismissed.