R. v. DANG QUANG MINH

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 624
(Criminal)

____________

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

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

1. The applicant was one of three Vietnamese men who were apprehended by the police on the evening of 7 April 1994 on suspicion of their involvement in burglary of a restaurant at Yu Chau Street, Kowloon.

2. The facts are very simple. An independent witness who was at the premises in question heard the sounds of someone attempting to break and enter the premises. He telephoned the police and a number of police officers arrived at the scene.

3. One of the other men the 3rd defendant in the proceedings was then attempting to prise open the iron gate of the premises. The applicant and the other man were standing nearby holding iron bars.

4. The men were arrested and cautioned and they all admitted that they were attempting to burgle the restaurant.

5. The applicant in his grounds of appeal states that "there were too many doubts in the case and that the oral statements from the police did not spell out the truth."

6. At his trial it would appear that the applicant did give evidence the basis of which was a police conspiracy to frame him.

7. Before us he repeated what he says he told the trial judge namely that he had been framed by the police and assaulted.

8. We can see no reason to disagree with the conclusion which was reached by the trial judge. There is no reason whatever to believe that this conviction was in any way unsafe or unsatisfactory and accordingly the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.