HKSAR v. TONG KWAN YEE DAVID

HCMA 101/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 101 OF 2006

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 3834/2005)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.  The Appellant has pleaded guilty to one charge of theft before the learned Magistrate and was fined $500.00.  The Appellant now wants to appeal against his theft conviction.

2.  It is clear from the court record that after his plea, the summary of facts was read to him and he agreed to the facts.  He was then sentenced after the learned Magistrate had heard the plea of mitigation from the lawyer representing him at that time. 

3.  The Appellant was originally represented by counsel but he terminated her service this morning after she had advised him on the merit of his appeal.

4.  The Appellant then proceeded to represent himself and claim as his ground of appeal that he had only pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court because he was threatened by his counsel and when asked about the facts of the threat, he repeated several times that counsel had advised him that if he pleaded guilty he would only be fined and no conviction would be recorded but, lo and behold, he found that his conviction was indeed recorded and so he claimed that that plea was a nullity because of that threat.

5.  I do not see any threat in what he had told this court and it seems he was legally advised before he pleaded guilty.  The plea was properly made after the charge was read to him and to which he had admitted and he was properly convicted.  There is no merit whatsoever in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed.