R. v. Lau Siu Ming

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 641
(Criminal)

___________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Barnett, J. (giving the judgment of the Court)

1. On 28th April, the Applicant faced 3 charges in the District Court, one of handling stolen goods, two of resisting a police officer in the execution of his duty.

2. After trial, the Applicant was convicted on all 3 charges. He was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment in respect of the handling charge, and 3 months imprisonment in respect of each charge of resisting a police officer. All those sentences, perhaps fortunately for the Applicant, were ordered to run concurrently. The Applicant now seeks leave to appeal against the convictions.

3. In the early hours of 29th March 1993, the Australian consul's residence in Deep Water Bay was burgled. Precious stones, jewellery and antiques worth about $14m. were stolen. Among these items was a unique antique seal worth about $1m. All of the property stolen belonged to the consul's husband Dr. Chey. A few days later, on the 6th April, a man attempted to contact Dr. Chey by phone at the Australian Consulate. Arrangements were made for Dr. Chey to attend the consulate the following day. On 7th and 8th April, Dr. Chey had a series of telephone conversations with a man who identified himself as Ah Hung. It is not in dispute that this man, Ah Hung, was in fact the Applicant. The Applicant indicated that he could return Dr. Chey's property. He asked if there would be any reward. Dr. Chey said he would pay $1m. An arrangement was then made to meet.

4. This matter had, however, been reported to the police. The police monitored and traced the telephone calls. They identified the Applicant at a public telephone in Sheung Wan Mass Transit Station. A team of police officers followed the Applicant to his home in Yuen Ping near Yuen Long.

5. From his home, the Applicant was seen to go to a nearby bookstore and photography studio and then returned home. Later, the Applicant emerged from his home. He was carrying a bag and got on his bicycle. As the Applicant rode away, police officers intercepted him and identified themselves. The Applicant attempted to ride away. The police officers had to restrain him. There was a struggle involving two police officers from the surveillance team. After the Applicant had been subdued and arrested, the seal to which reference was made earlier was found in the plastic bag.

6. After being taken to a police station, the Applicant made two long statements in question and answer form. Those statements were ultimately admitted in evidence at trial.

7. The thrust of the Applicant's defence at trial was this: the Applicant maintained that he was an innocent middleman. A man he had previously met on a construction site told him that he had acquired the property in the market for $300,000. After conversation, this old acquaintance was persuaded that the property should be returned to the rightful owner. The Applicant, in making the telephone calls which he did, was simply trying to arrange for return of the property.

8. The crux of the case, as the district judge correctly identified, was whether or not the Applicant was acting as an honest middleman. Hardly surprisingly in view of the facts outlined, the judge formed a poor view of the Applicant, who gave evidence on his own behalf. The judge found that the Applicant had been acting dishonestly in helping another to dispose of or realise stolen goods for reward. The judge also rejected the Applicant's allegation that the police had framed him for assault in order to account for injuries received by the Applicant in the course of making the two statements.

9. The Applicant reduced his grounds of appeal into writing, they are eight in number. This morning he has emphasised two of them. The first ground suggests that there were some mis-translations of the transcript of the telephone conversations. Assuming those mis-translations to have taken place, they do not, in our view, detract from the thrust of those telephone calls which, as the judge found, was:

"A heavy negotiation and the determination not to part with the goods until money was paid."

10. The other seven grounds all relate to matters which were plainly in issue before the judge. Doubtless, they were properly urged upon the judge by counsel who appeared for the Applicant. There is nothing in any of those grounds which today carries the matter further or suggests that the judge was wrong in the conclusion to which he came.

11. We are satisfied there is nothing in any of the grounds placed before us and that the convictions by the judge were in all respects proper. Accordingly, the application is refused.