R. v. HUI SHUN FAT

IN THE HIGH COURT

1995, No. 221
Magistracy Appeal

___________

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

Litton, V.-P.:

1. This is an appeal against conviction by Mr Hui Shun Fat. He was convicted after trial before Mr Brennan at the San Po Kong Magistracy on 23 January 1995 on one charge namely doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to Common Law.

2. The particulars of the charge were that on 10 December 1993 he altered entries in a document purporting to be the official call-register of the Yau Luen Public Radio Car Centre which was to be produced as evidence in previous court proceedings. Upon conviction by the magistrate the appellant was sentenced to six months' imprisonment but the magistrate allowed the appellant to be released on bail pending his appeal. He has now today surrendered to his bail.

3. Initially he sought an adjournment of the hearing of this appeal which I refused.

4. The charge on which the appellant stands convicted relates to criminal proceedings brought against him at the end of 1993. He was a taxi driver and was the defendant in those proceedings at the Kwun Tong Magistracy. The charge he then faced was that of unlawfully soliciting passengers. His defence to that charge was that he had been called in response to a radio call to pick-up a passenger at Yue Man Square in Kwun Tong. To substantiate his defence to that charge a witness Miss Lau Oi Yee was called and she produced a taxi call-register, exhibit P3. This showed that the appellant (whose call number was No. 633) had received a call in his taxi at 11.40pm to pick-up passengers at Yuen Man Square, Kwun Tong to go to Central. In fact that exhibit was false. Miss Lau Oi Yee (PW1) was induced to falsify the record by the offer of money. The sheet containing the false entry had been made by PW1 and, ironically, she (PW1) had made a botched job of it; the entry prior to that was also "11.40" and when they realised that, shortly before PW1 gave evidence at the Kwun Tong Magistracy as a defence witness, PW1 was asked to alter that entry by pen so that it read "11.48". When the falsity was discovered, PW1 was interviewed by the police and was given immunity from prosecution in order to testify against the appellant in relation to the present charge. This resulted in his conviction.

5. There were discrepancies between PW1's police statement and what she said in court. For instance, she testified in the proceedings at the San Po Kong Magistracy that the appellant had paid her $400 whereas in the police statement she said it was $500. As to PW1's reliability as a witness, this is what the magistrate said:

" There were some discrepancies in PW1's evidence but they were of such a nature that they did not undermind my view that she was a truthful and accurate witness. She gave her evidence in a simple straight forward and direct way. There was no exaggeration on her part to maximise the Appellant's position. Despite a searching and very careful cross-examination by highly competent and thorough counsel this witness could not be shaken in the evidence she gave."

6. There was no evidence coming from the appellant at the trial to contradict what PW1 said. The appellant did not himself give evidence nor did he call any witnesses. The result was that what PW1 testified to in court remained wholly uncontradicted and was supported by the exhibit P3 adduced in court.

7. In his conclusion this is what the magistrate said:

" I was sure beyond reasonable doubt after considering all the evidence in this case that the Appellant had induced PW1 to compile the false ExP3 and to give evidence according to that document at the Kwun Tong Magistracy on the 10th of December 1993. This was an act or course of conduct which had a tendency to and was intend to pervert the course of public justice.

There was no one else who would have benefited from this exhibit or the evidence which flowed from it."

8. It seems to me that the magistrate has analysed the evidence impeccably. There are no grounds put forward to say that he erred in any way. The appeal against conviction must therefore be dismissed.