HKSAR v. WONG YUN WAN

CAC C 385/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 385 OF 2010

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 873 OF 2010)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Stock VP (giving the reasons for judgment of the Court):

1.  This was a renewal of an application for leave to appeal against conviction, leave having been refused by a single judge.

2.  On 23 June 2011, we dismissed the application and said that we would give reasons later.  This we now do.

3.  On 7 October 2010 the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to two charges of sending a letter threatening to murder or kill a person, contrary to s. 15 of the Offences against the Person ordinance, Cap. 212.  He was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment on each charge, these sentences to run concurrently.

4.  He applied for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.  For reasons which are unclear, but not relevant for present purposes, his appeal against sentence was heard separately, he having been granted leave for that purpose, but his appeal against sentence was dismissed on 22 December 2010.

5.  The charges were that on 18 May 2010 and 15 June 2010 he, maliciously knowing the contents thereof, sent a letter to the Commissioner of Police, threatening to murder or kill police officers.

6.  He admitted the facts in the summary presented to the District Court and those facts were consistent with his plea of guilty.

7.  The applicant appeared before us in person and presented his submissions with courtesy and clarity.

8.  The background to the case arises from a grievance which the applicant had with members of the Housing Authority to whom he sent a letter which contain various threats and he was convicted of an offence of criminal intimidation in that regard.  The applicant took deep objection to the manner in which, in the course of his arrest, investigation and trial for those matters, he had been dealt with by police officers and the sending of the letters which were the subject of this charge were consequent upon that grievance and upon his deep frustration at what he perceived to be the failure of the authorities to respond satisfactorily to his complaints.

9.  In his submissions to us, the applicant did not suggest that his plea of guilty was equivocal; any such suggestion would be, in any event, without foundation.  On the contrary, he said in his submissions to this Court that the letters were indeed written and sent by him and that there was no reason not to plead guilty but he took the view that if, having pleaded guilty, “the verdict was very reasonable, I would definitely accept and shoulder my responsibility and the consequences.  If the verdict was unfair and unreasonable, I would exercise my right to appeal to file an appeal and put up a defence.”

10.  What, in short, he is unhappy about is the fact that he was prosecuted in the first place as well as the fact that he was punished for the offences or, possibly, the fact of the extent of the punishment.

11.  There is no suggestion, nor could there be, that he acted under duress in pleading guilty or that, for some other reason, his plea was a nullity.

12.  As this Court explained to him at the end of the hearing, there is, therefore, as a matter of law, no basis upon which the validity of his plea may be questioned and no basis upon which his conviction may be said to be unsafe or unsatisfactory.  Therefore, we dismissed his application.