HKSAR v. NG SIU FAI

DCCC 201 /2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 201 OF 2011

____________________

____________________

Reasons for Verdict

____________________

INTRODUCTION

1.  The Defendant is charged with 15 counts of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance, Cap 210.

2.  The offences took place at Mong Kok Police Station (the “Police Station”) on various days between 24 August 2009 and 23 August 2010 inclusive with the following particulars:

Charge	Date of Offence	Property stolen
1	24 August 2009	cash of about HK$100
2	26 August 2009	cash of HK$500
3	22 December 2009	some cash of Hong Kong currency
4	2 April 2010	cash of about HK$150
5	12 June 2010	cash of about HK$600
6	16 June 2010	cash of about HK$150
7	26 June 2010	cash of HK$60
8	26 June 2010	some cash of Hong Kong currency
9	8 July 2010	cash of about HK$1,200
10	15 July 2010	cash of about HK$100
11	18 July 2010	some cash of Hong Kong currency
12	25 July 2010	cash of HK$150
13	7 August 2010	cash of HK$120
14	11 August 2010	some cash of Hong Kong currency
15	23 August 2010	cash of HK$200

3.  The prosecution called 29 prosecution witnesses, namely:

PW	Name	Role
1	Senior Inspector WONG Ho-pui	PW1 testified on the duties of a Report Room Receptionist at the Police Station and the usual procedures adopted by the police when a citizen came to make a found property report
2	Mr LEUNG Wing-tai	Owner of wallet in Charge 2
3	Madam TO Yee-wan	Finder of HK$400 in Charge 15
4	Madam FAN In-leng	PW4 took the wallet in Charge 1 to the Police Station.
5	Mr MAN Kam-fai	Finder of wallet in Charge 2
6	Madam YAM Wing-ha	Finder of wallet in Charge 12
7	Madam CHEUNG Shu-man	Owner of wallet in Charge 12
8	Mr WONG Man-tung James	Finder of wallet in Charge 3
9	Mr LAM Kam-wing	Owner of wallet in Charge 3
10	Mr IP Kin-to	Owner of wallet in Charge 4
11	Mr AU Chun-kit	Finder of wallet in Charge 4
12	Mr LAU Chi-yuen John	Owner of wallet in Charge 5
13	Madam CHAN Wing-chi Janice	Finder of wallet in Charge 5
14	Madam WONG Chi-ying	Finder of wallet in Charge 7
15	Mr KAM Chi-hin Jason	Finder of card-holder in Charge 6
16	Madam CHUNG Ka-yan	Owner of wallet in Charge 7
17	Mr CHUNG Ka-kui	PW17 collected PW16’s wallet on PW16’s behalf from the Police Station.
18	Mr YIP Pak-hung	Owner of card-holder in Charge 6
19	Mr WAN Chee-shan	Finder of wallet in Charge 9
20	Mr FUNG Chi-yuen	Finder of wallet in Charge 10
21	Mr LEUNG Kwok-wai	Owner of wallet in Charge 10
22	Madam YAU Wing-ying	Finder of wallet in Charge 11
23	Madam LEUNG Yi-nga	Owner of wallet in Charge 11
24	Mr TOO Hung-fung	Finder of wallet in Charge 13
25	Mr CHAN Chi-hang	Owner of wallet in Charge 13
26	Mr FONG Hoi-lam	Finder of wallet in Charge 8
27	Mr FUNG Man-hung	Owner of wallet in Charge 14
28	Madam YUEN Kin-fan	One of the finders of wallet in Charge 14
29	Madam HO Hiu-tung	One of the finders of wallet in Charge 14

4.  A set of Admitted Facts was agreed by the prosecution and the defence pursuant to section 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221. That set of Admitted Facts was produced as Exhibit P1. The following materials were also produced pursuant to section 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221:

Exhibit	Description	Remarks
P2A	video-disc recording the cautioned interview with the defendant on 25 August 2010 from 14:56 hours to 15:31 hours
P2B	working copy of Exhibit P2A
P2C	Chinese transcript of Exhibit P2A
P2D	certified English translation of Exhibit P2C
P3A	video-disc recording the cautioned interview with the defendant on 22 September 2010 from 11:03 hours to 12:02 hours
P3B	working copy of Exhibit P3A
P3C	Chinese transcript of Exhibit P3A
P3D	certified English translation of Exhibit P3C
P4A	video-disc recording the cautioned interview with the defendant on 7 October 2010 from 11:49 hours to 13:34 hours
P4B	working copy of Exhibit P4A
P4C	Chinese transcript of Exhibit P4A
P4D	certified English translation of Exhibit P4C
P5A	video-disc recording the cautioned interview with the defendant on 26 November 2010 from 10:55 hours to 12:50 hours
P5B	working copy of Exhibit P5A
P5C	Chinese transcript of Exhibit P5A
P5D	certified English translation of Exhibit P5C
P6A	the defendant’s police notebook serial no.4421226	The entry in Exhibit P6A from line 1 of p.114 to line 14 of p.117 relates to Charge 1.
P6B	certified English translation of Exhibit P6A
P7A	the defendant’s police notebook serial no.4282571	The entry in Exhibit P7A from line 1 of p.1 to line 14 of p.3 relates to Charge 2.
P7B	certified English translation of Exhibit P7A
P8A	the defendant’s police notebook serial no.4393509	The entry in Exhibit P8A from line 1 of p.14 to line 14 of p.17 relates to Charge 3.
P8B	certified English translation of Exhibit P8A
P9A	the defendant’s police notebook serial no.4489637	The entry in Exhibit P9A from line 1 of p.4 to line 14 of p.9 relates to Charge 4. The entry in Exhibit P9A from line 1 of p.90 to line 14 of p.95 relates to Charge 5. The entry in Exhibit P9A from line 1 of p.96 to line 14 of p.99 relates to Charge 6. The entry in Exhibit P9A from line 1 of p.106 to line 14 of p.113 (excluding line 1 of p.108 to line 14 of p.109) relates to Charge 7. The entry in Exhibit P9A from line 1 of p.106 to line 14 of p.115 relates to Charge 8.
P9B	certified English translation of Exhibit P9A
P10A	the defendant’s police notebook serial no.4546233	The entry in Exhibit P10A from line 1 of p.4 to line 14 of p.7 relates to Charge 9. The entry in Exhibit P10A from line 1 of p.10 to line 14 of p.15 relates to Charge 10. The entry in Exhibit P10A from line 1 of p.14 to line 14 of p.17 relates to Charge 11. The entry in Exhibit P10A from line 1 of p.30 to line 14 of p.33 relates to Charge 12. The entry in Exhibit P10A from line 1 of p.50 to line 14 of p.53 relates to Charge 13. The entry in Exhibit P10A from line 1 of p.56 to line 14 of p.61 relates to Charge 14. The entry in Exhibit P10A from line 1 of p.84 to line 14 of p.87 relates to Charge 15.
P10B	certified English translation of Exhibit P10A
P11	a sketch of the Report Room on the Ground Floor of the Police Station

  It was admitted in Exhibit P1 that the answers given by the defendant in the cautioned interviews captured in Exhibits P2A, P3A, P4A and P5A were all voluntary. It was also admitted in Exhibit P1 that the defendant was of good character. It was not in dispute that the defendant was the police officer who handled the found property in the present 15 charges.

5. The following witness statements were admitted and produced as exhibits by virtue of section 65B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221:

Exhibit	Description	Remarks
P12	witness statement of Inspector WONG Kok-seng	Exhibit P12 provides information about the handling procedures of “found property” cases in the Police Station.
P13	witness statement of Mr LEUNG Chip-yuen (“Leung”)	Exhibit P13 relates to Charge 15.
P14	witness statement of Madam HO Siu-mi (“Ho”)	Ho was the owner of HK$400 in Charge 15.
P15	ATM withdrawal advice for HK$400 dated 23 August 2010 at 12:04 hours	Exhibit P15 was the ATM withdrawal advice Ho obtained after her withdrawal of HK$400 on 23 August 2010.
P16	witness statement of PC 11023	Exhibit P16 relates to Charge 15.
P17	witness statement of WPC5579	Exhibit P17 relates to Charge 15.
P18	witness statement of WPC56835	Exhibit P18 relates to Charge 15.
P19	witness statement of WPC9638	Exhibit P19 relates to Charge 5.
P20	witnesss statement of WPC6646	Exhibit P20 relates to Charge 8.
P21	witness statement of WPC6646	Exhibit P21 relates to Charge 7.
P22	witness statement of PC9312	Exhibit P22 relates to Charge 10.
P23	witness statement of PC8959	Exhibit P23 relates to Charge 11.
P24	witness statement of PC10347	Exhibit P24 relates to Charge 13.
P25	witness statement of Mr SIU Kwan-ho (“Siu”)	Siu was the owner of wallet in Charge 8.

6.  Before the prosecution closed its case, Mr Ryan informed me that the owner of the wallet in relation to Charge 1 was not in Hong Kong and the owner of the wallet in relation to Charge 9 was seriously sick, that both of them were unable to attend this court to testify, and that the prosecution would offer no further evidence on Charges 1 and 9.

7.  As there was no evidence as to the contents of the respective wallets in relation to Charges 1 and 9 when the wallets were subsequently returned to the respective owners by the defendant, hence no evidence that some of the contents were taken away after PW4 and PW19 had delivered the respective wallets to the defendant, I ruled no case to answer in respect of Charges 1 and 9. I ruled a case to answer for each of the remaining 13 charges. 

8.  The defendant elected to testify. No other defence witness was called. During the defendant’s testimony, the following exhibits were produced:

Exhibit	Description
D1	Certificate of Appreciation for contributing to the 2008 Olympic and Paralympic Equestrian Events of the Games of the XXIX Olympiad dated August – September 2008 issued by Mr Henry TANG, Chief Secretary for Administration and President of the Equestrian Committee (Hong Kong) of the Beijing Organising Committee for the Games of the XXIX Olympiad
D2	A document saying the defendant was a winning police officer in the election of outstanding police officer in Yau Ma Tei, Tsim Sha Tsui and Mong Kok area
D3	A commendation letter dated 30 June 2006 from the Regional Commander Kowloon West
D4	A  commendation letter dated 4 June 2008 from the District Commander, Mongkok District
D5	Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance – Data Access Request Form

THE PROSECUTION’S CASE

Background

9.  In 2009 and 2010, the layout of the Report Room of the Police Station was as shown in Exhibit P11. At all material times, one of the defendant’s duties was working as a Report Room Receptionist at the Police Station. The defendant would sit at the triage reception desk which was on the right hand side of the entrance to the Police Station. When a member of the public went into the Police Station, the defendant’s duty as a Report Room Receptionist was to make a preliminary enquiry with that person to understand what kind of report that person was going to make, and then to direct that person to go to the appropriate counter. For example, if a member of the public came to report that he had picked up a wallet, the Report Room Receptionist should direct that person to bring along the wallet to go to the Loss Counter shown in Exhibit P11 so that the officer at the Loss Counter would entertain that person. In addition to the Loss Counter, there were two other counters next to the Loss Counter manned by two other officers, one being the Assistant Duty Officer (“ADO”) and one called “Tai Lau (睇樓)”. Those two counters were responsible for different kinds of reports made. Apart from dealing with found property report and lost property report, the Report Room Receptionist would also direct members of the public to those two other counters if appropriate. For example, if a civilian came to report a theft case, the Report Room Receptionist would direct that civilian to go to one of the counters next to the Loss Counter so that the officer in charge of that counter would deal with the theft case with that civilian.   

10.  According to the Police General Order, when a civilian came to make a police report, the police officer had to record the details of the report in the computer system called the Communal Information System (“CIS”). According to the Police General Order, when a civilian handed over found property to the police station, the police officer had to make an accurate and clear record of the details of the found property in the CIS and to issue a receipt, namely Pol 68D, to that civilian. As computers were located at the three counters (i.e. the Loss Counter and the two other counters next to the Loss Counter) but not at the triage reception desk, it would be the police officer at the Loss Counter, not the Report Room Receptionist, who could make an accurate and clear record of the details of the found property in the CIS. As there was no computer located at the triage reception desk, the Report Room Receptionist had no means to input any details of the found property into the CIS at the triage reception desk. Therefore, the Report Room Receptionist had to direct the civilian to take along the found property to the Loss Counter so as to enable the police officer at the Loss Counter to input the details of the found property into the CIS and to issue a receipt listing the details of the found property to the civilian. The receipt, i.e. Pol 68D, needed to be signed by the civilian and the officer who input the details into the CIS. If the Report Room Receptionist was to take the found property from the civilian, make a record in his police notebook, send the civilian away and subsequently take the found property to the Loss Counter, it was a deviation from the Police General Order.

11.  The Loss Counter was not open all round the clock. When the Loss Counter was closed, the found property report would be dealt with by the other two counters next to the Loss Counter as computers were also installed at the other two counters.  Found property report had to be dealt with by those counters where computers were installed, not by the Report Room Receptionist, because details of the found property had to be recorded in the CIS. Normally the receipt was given to the civilian before he left the Police Station. If the civilian said he did not want the receipt, his refusal to take the receipt would have to be indicated in the CIS.

12.  In general, after the details of the found property had been entered into the CIS and a receipt had been issued to the civilian, the police officer at the Loss Counter would then hand over the found property to the police officer at the Property Office who would then handle the found property and try to locate the owner of the found property. Sometimes, the police officer at the Report Room, including the Report Room Receptionist, would also try to locate the owner of the found property. However, in general, since it was the officer at the Loss Counter who input the details of the found property into the CIS and would have more details of the owner, it would be the officer at the Loss Counter to contact the owner.     

Charge 2

13.  In the evening on a day in late August 2009, PW5 who was a hawker at the junction of Prince Edward Road West and Portland Street found that a wallet had been left behind by a customer. PW5 checked the contents of the wallet and found that there were some cash consisting of a HK$500 banknote and some HK$20 banknotes, an ID card and a credit card in the wallet. PW5 then took the wallet to the Police Station on the same evening. PW5 handed the wallet to a police officer in the Report Room. In PW5’s presence, the officer took a look at the wallet, checked the items inside, took out the ID card and credit card from the wallet and showed PW5 the ID card and credit card. However, the officer did not take out the cash from the wallet. The officer then made a record on his police notebook and asked PW5 to sign on the notebook. PW5 noticed that there was no reference to the HK$500 banknote or any cash at all in the notebook entry. As PW5 had seen cash in the wallet, he hesitated; but after second thought, he did not say anything to the officer. PW5 simply signed on the notebook and left the Police Station. No receipt was given to PW5.    

14.  PW2 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 2. Sometime after 7 pm on 26 August 2009, he went to a hawker stall at the junction of Prince Edward Road West and Portland Street to buy a bag. Later in the evening, PW2 received a phone call from Citibank card centre telling him that someone had found his Citibank credit card and that he could collect his credit card from the Police Station. PW2 then realized that his wallet was missing. PW2 went to the Police Station in order to collect his wallet. PW2 was received by a police officer who took out PW2’s wallet from a drawer. PW2 was told to check the items inside the wallet to see if anything was missing. PW2 checked and found that except for a $500 banknote, everything else was inside his wallet. PW2 told the officer of the same. The officer told PW2 that PW2 was lucky that he had just lost $500 but everything else, including his ID card, was inside the wallet. The officer then asked PW2 to sign on a notebook. PW2 testified that the notebook was written with some illegible characters. PW2 did not read the notebook because he had no intention to pursue the missing HK$500. He simply signed on the notebook and left the Police Station.  

15.  The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 2 (Exhibits P7A and P7B) are the two entries marked with the times “2130” and “2150”. At the entry marked with the time “2130”, it was recorded the handing over of the wallet, a credit card and an identity card by PW5. At the entry marked with the time “2150”, it was recorded that PW2 went to the Police Station and signed to acknowledge receipt. The two entries in defendant’s notebook had no mention of money.

16.  Paragraphs 201 to 304 of Exhibit P5D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 2. In the interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:

(i) he could not remember the circumstances at the relevant time because it was too long ago;

(ii) if he had not recorded money in his notebook, it probably had no money in the wallet;

(iii) if there was money, he would have recorded money in his notebook; and

(iv) he had taken everything out from the wallet and spread everything out for PW5 to see before PW5 signed on the notebook.

Charge 3

17.  At about 11:24 am on 22 December 2009, PW8 was on board a taxi from Mong Kok to Prince Edward in order to repair an ATM machine at the MTR station in Prince Edward. Whilst PW8 was in the taxi, he found a brown wallet at the rear passenger seat. The wallet contained some $100, $20 and $10 banknotes, some name cards, an identity card and some miscellaneous stuff. PW8 said the wallet was a thick one with slips and money inside. After PW8 had finished repairing the ATM machine at the MTR station, PW8 went to the Police Station to report that he had picked up a wallet. PW8 handed over the wallet to the police officer at the triage reception desk for the officer to check the contents of the wallet. PW8 was not asked to sign anything, nor was he given any receipt to show that he had handed in a wallet. PW8 left the Police Station afterwards. PW8 testified that he was in a hurry to leave the Police Station as he needed to go back to work.

18.  PW9 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 3. He left his wallet behind in a taxi which took him from Shatin to Mong Kok on 22 December 2009. At about 10 am that day, he went to the Police Station to make a lost property report. About an hour later, PW9 got a call from the Police Station telling PW9 that someone had found his wallet. PW9 therefore went back to the Police Station to collect his wallet. He found that his identity card, bank cards were in his wallet but money was missing. He testified that when he left his wallet behind in the taxi, there was HK$3,000 consisting of four HK$500 banknotes and ten HK$100 banknotes in his wallet. PW9 told the police officer from whom PW9 collected his wallet that cash was missing. The officer told PW9 that when the wallet was handed over to the Police Station, there was already no money inside the wallet. The officer asked PW9 to sign to acknowledge receipt of his wallet.

19.  The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 3 (Exhibits P8A and P8B) are the entries marked with the times “1145”, “1210”, “1225” and “1345”. At the entry marked with the time “1145”, it was recorded that PW8 had handed over a wallet containing money, some documents, card(s) and bank card(s) to the defendant for handling. At the entry marked with the time “1345”, it was recorded that PW9 had got back the “relevant property”.

20.  Paragraphs 23 to 657 of Exhibit P4D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 3. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:

(i) He was the Triage Receptionist at the Police Station responsible for doing triage. For example, when a member of the public made a found property report or a lost property report, he would arrange for his colleague(s) at the back to handle the matter. However, when it was very busy, he would also handle found (or lost) property report himself and subsequently refer the case to his colleague(s) at the back for further handling. When he handled a found property report himself, he would register the particulars of the finder. He would also register whatever which was picked by the finder – the finder would place the items he/she had picked up at the defendant’s place and then the defendant would check all the property and have them registered. After the defendant had registered every single stuff, he would count and receive the items for the finder again to see if they were correct. Then he would let the finder sign on his notebook. After that, he would pass the found property to his colleague at the Loss Counter for further handling. The colleague at the Loss Counter would then make an entry into the computer as a record;

(ii) Usually when a member of the public came to make a found property report, the defendant would count the property clearly in front of the finder first. After counting the property clearly, the defendant would make his own entry onto his notebook. He said after counting and receiving the property, he would then write them onto his notebook and sign;

(iii) In relation to his notebook entry marked with the time “1145” (in Exhibits P8A and P8B) in which it was recorded that PW8 had handed over inter alia money to the defendant for handling, the defendant said that he could not recall the amount of money that was handed over to him. When the interviewing officer asked the defendant why he did not write clearly the amount of money, the defendant said he did not recall why and he was not that clear why. He said perhaps it was because he wrote too fast;

(iv) The defendant then said he could not recall if there was any money in the wallet;

(v) When the interviewing officer asked the defendant why he did not clearly record the particulars of the property in detail, the defendant said maybe he was lazy. He also said maybe he was busy;

(vi) The defendant confirmed that the wallet was all along kept by him until it was collected by PW9;

(vii) When asked about why the entry marked with the time “1345” had no reference to money, the defendant said maybe there was very little money;

(viii) He disagreed that PW8 had handed over a wad of banknotes to him. He said that maybe it was the coins of about $20 to $30 which were handed over to him. He continued and said that if it was a large amount of money, he would immediately make a record. He said a thousand dollars would be considered a large amount of money; and

(ix) The defendant said that PW9 had not told him that money was missing. (In cross-examination on PW9, Mr Loftus put to PW9 that when PW9 told the police officer (from whom PW9 collected his wallet) that money was missing, the officer told PW9 that PW9 could make a further report of loss of money.)

Charge 4

21.  On the morning of a day in early April 2010, PW11 picked up a wallet in a bus. PW11 found that there were an identity card, student card, a sum of money of $100 odd and some other stuff in the wallet. At about 12:30 pm that day, PW11 went to the Police Station and handed over the wallet to a police officer who was situated at a counter on the right hand side of the Report Room. That officer opened the wallet and checked the contents inside. The officer then wrote something on his notebook but PW11 did not know what that officer had written. PW11 then signed on the notebook and left the Police Station. PW11 testified that although he signed on the notebook, it was difficult to read what was written on that notebook. PW11 testified that he did not know the procedure and how the officer would handle the case. He simply signed on the notebook when that officer asked him to sign. No receipt or acknowledgment was given to PW11. 

22.  PW10 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 4. He lost his wallet in a bus on the morning of 2 April 2010. There was about $100 odd in his wallet before he lost it. One or two hours after he realized he had lost his wallet, PW10 received a call from a police officer of the Police Station saying that someone had found his wallet and that he could collect it at the Police Station. PW10 therefore went to the Police Station on the afternoon of 2 April 2010. He went to the Report Room and spoke to a uniformed police officer who was sitting at a desk on the right hand side of the Report Room. PW10 testified that as soon as he entered the Report Room, that officer had already recognized him and called out his surname Mr. Ip. That officer produced PW10’s wallet and checked the contents of PW10’s wallet in PW10’s presence. Inside his wallet were an identity card, Octopus card and credit cards but no money. PW10 told the officer that money in his wallet was missing. The officer said there was no money inside the wallet when it was taken to the Police Station. PW10 did not pursue the matter and left the Police Station after signing the notebook of that police officer to confirm receipt of his wallet.

23.  The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 4 (Exhibits P9A and P9B from line 1 of p.4 to line 14 of p.9) are the two entries marked with the times “1340” and “1420”. At the entry marked with the time “1340”, it was recorded that PW11 had handed over a wallet containing PW10’s identity card and “property” to the defendant, and that if the wallet remained unclaimed after 90 days, a letter would be sent to PW11 for claiming the above article. At the entry marked with the time “1420”, it was recorded that PW10 claimed the “above property”, and that after PW10 had counted it, he found no problem.

24.  Paragraphs 660 to 919 of Exhibit P4D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 4. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:

(i) It was stated in the entry from line 1 on page 6 to line 9 on page 7 of his notebook (Exhibit P9A) that PW10’s wallet contained PW10’s identity card and miscellaneous items;

(ii) He could not clearly remember the course of handling the wallet from PW11 but he had clearly counted the items handed over to him by PW11;

(iii) When the interviewing officer asked the defendant what miscellaneous items were, the defendant answered they were paper, photos, cards and those sorts of things. He said the wallet had no property of value;

(iv) The interviewing officer asked the defendant why in the entry from line 1 on page 6 to line 9 on page 7 of his notebook (Exhibit P9A), the defendant had told PW11 that if no one claimed the wallet in 90 days, a letter would be issued to PW11 to take the wallet; but in the case just mentioned/investigated by the interviewing officer (Charge 3; paragraphs 23 to 657 of Exhibit P4D), there was no reference of the finder’s right to claim the found property if no one claimed it in 90 days. The defendant answered that it was because at that time, i.e. 22 December 2009, he had not come to know yet and that he really had no idea in the past. (However, it was suggested by Mr Loftus during cross-examination on PW5, the wallet finder in Charge 2 happened on 26 August 2009, that the police officer who took the wallet from PW5 had said to PW5 that if in 3 months no one claimed the property, PW5 could claim it.);

(v) When asked by the interviewing officer why he did not write clearly what the miscellaneous items were, the defendant answered “Because I … not clear. Maybe they were of no value really.” The defendant agreed that he would not record items of no value; and

(vi) When asked about whether he had issued Pol 68D to PW11, the defendant answered that he (PW11) refused to take it. The interviewing officer then said PW11’s refusal to take Pol 68D was not recorded in the defendant’s notebook. The defendant answered that he had omitted to write it down.

Charge 5

25.  At about 5 pm on 12 June 2010 when PW13 was on board a taxi, she found a wallet in the rear passenger seat. She told the taxi driver that she had found a wallet and the taxi driver told PW13 to report to the police herself. PW13 checked the wallet and found that there was an identity card, an Octopus card, travel coupons, some name card, one $500 banknote and one $100 banknote. She went to the Police Station on the same evening. She went to a uniformed police officer seated at a desk on the right hand side of the Report Room. She handed over the wallet to that police officer who opened and checked the contents inside the wallet in PW13’s presence. The officer appeared to be writing down the contents of the wallet in his notebook. When he was making record in his notebook, the $500 banknote and $100 banknote were still there. PW13 did not read what the officer had written because the characters he wrote were quite illegible. She nevertheless signed on the notebook and left the Police Station without being given a receipt. PW13 testified that the officer had read out to her what was purportedly written in his notebook. PW13 testified that the officer had read out to her the items she had picked up, including the $600. PW13 testified that she did not know whether what the officer had read out to her was the same as what he had written on his notebook. PW13 agreed that the officer had told her that if no one came to claim the property in 3 months, she could claim it. When it was suggested to her by Mr Loftus that she had told the officer that she would not claim it, PW13 denied having said so. She testified that she understood she had the right to claim it and so she would claim it.

26.  According to Exhibit P19, WPC9638 was on duty at the Loss Counter of the Police Station from 7:10 pm on 12 June 2010. At around 7:51 pm on the same day, the defendant handed over a black wallet to her. The wallet contained PW12’s identity card, an Octopus card, two credit cards and a pile of personal documents. The defendant also told WPC9638 that the wallet was handed over to him by PW13. WPC9638 recorded the case in the CIS at 7:52 pm on the same day. In Exhibit P19, there was no mention of money being handed over to WPC9638 by the defendant.

27.  PW12 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 5. He lost his wallet in a taxi on 12 June 2010. He had two credit cards, an Octopus card, his HK identity card and cash of about $300 to $700 in his wallet before he lost it. Having realized that he had lost his wallet, he called the card centers to stop any further credit card transactions. On the morning of 14 June 2010, PW12 received a call from the Police Station informing him that he could go to the Police Station to collect his wallet. When he went to the Police Station, it was a woman officer who received him. When he got his wallet back, he found that all money in his wallet was gone. He did not pursue the loss of his money because he was happy that he found his credit cards.   

28.  The relevant entry in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 5 (Exhibits P9A and P9B) is the entry marked with the time “1935” at which it was recorded that the wallet found by PW13 contained “some property”, identity card, documents etc. It was also recorded that the defendant had explained to PW13 that if no one collected the wallet within three months, the police would notify her to come to collect it but PW13 refused and signed to confirm.

29.  Paragraphs 79 to 140 of Exhibit P3D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 5. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:

(i) He did not have much recollection of that incident;

(ii) Since the notebook entry recorded that PW13 found “some property”, the interviewing officer asked the defendant what property it was. The defendant said he could not recall, and that maybe he had written it down wrongly; and

(iii) When the interviewing officer asked him whether there was any cash amongst the property, the defendant said “there was none probably, I would write it down if there was”. The defendant continued and said he had no recollection at all, and that he could not recall what the so-called “property” was.

Charge 6

30.  On 16 June 2010, PW15 found a card-holder in a bus. He opened it and found that there were some cash of about $150 in the form of banknotes, name cards and credit cards in the card-holder. At about 3:45 pm on the same day, PW15 took the card-holder to the Police Station. He approached a male police officer who seated behind a desk on the right hand side of the Report Room. He told the officer that he had found a card-holder. The officer took the contents inside the card-holder (including the money) out, and put them on the desk. The officer counted the money in PW15’s presence. It was about $150. The officer made a record in his notebook. PW15 just took a glance at the notebook. PW15 testified that he was able to see that money was recorded in the notebook. He read the notebook briefly and signed on it.  

31.  PW18 was the owner of the card-holder. He lost it in a bus on 16 June 2010. He had a credit card, his identity card, his China Home Re-Entry Permit, cash of about $100 to $200, some name cards etc in his card-holder before he lost it. At about 4 pm on the same day, PW18 received a call from the police that someone had found his card-holder. PW18 therefore went to the Police Station to collect it. After waiting at the Report Room for a while, a police officer surnamed NG took PW18 to the reception desk. That officer took out the contents of PW18’s card-holder in PW18’s presence. When PW18 checked the contents, he found that his money was missing. PW18 told the officer of the same. The officer told PW18 that when the card-holder was taken to the Police Station, there was already no money inside, and that perhaps someone had taken the money away before the card-holder was taken to the Police Station.

32.  The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 6 (Exhibits P9A and P9B) are from line 1 of page 96 to line 14 of page 99 with the entries marked with the times “1550” and “1645”. At the entry marked with the time “1550”, it was recorded that the leather case picked up by PW15 contained PW18’s identity card, credit card(s), documents, and a name card. At the beginning in line 1 on page 97 of Exhibit P9A, there were three Chinese characters written before “documents”. Those three Chinese characters preceded “credit card(s)” in the last line on page 96 of Exhibit P9A. In Exhibit P9B, the certified English translation of Exhibit P9A, the three Chinese characters were said to be illegible. (The defendant testified in his evidence-in-chief that the three Chinese characters meant “some money”, but he said he had probably made an error and that he should have written down “something” instead of “some money”.) At the entry marked with the time “1645”, it was recorded that PW18 “counted the above property properly, a record was made in the notebook and he signed to confirm”.

33.  Paragraphs 141 to 216 and 581 to 591 of Exhibit P3D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 6. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:

(i) The three illegible Chinese characters did not contain the Chinese character “錢 (money)”. He said the character was illegible;

(ii) No money was handed in to him in relation to this incident, otherwise he would have written it down;

(iii) If he had written down “money” in his notebook, it might be some small change which he did not record. However, if there was really money, for example 20, 30, 150, he would certainly mark it down in order to be fair for all to check off the amount. But probably on that day, there was really small change and all kinds of things which he did not write down due to a moment of forgetfulness;

(iv) When asked by the interviewing officer why he thought there was no need to record small change, the defendant answered that probably he had omitted to do it and was unable to remember so many things; and

(v) If it was something relating to money, he would definitely mark it down and he would not fail to mark it because it was trivial.

Charge 7

34.  At about 6:45 pm on 26 June 2010, PW14 found a wallet in a bus. She checked the contents inside the wallet and found that there were three $20 banknotes, an identity card, a Hang Seng Bank ATM card and a patient follow-up card. She took the wallet to the Police Station on the same evening. She approached a police officer sitting behind a desk on the right hand side of the Report Room. She told the officer that she had found the wallet. In PW14’s presence, the officer took the contents out of the wallet and put them on the desk to count the items. When the officer took the contents out of the wallet and counted the contents, the three $20 banknotes were amongst the items he checked. PW14 testified that the officer appeared to be recording what was found in the wallet, but the officer did not write down the three $20 banknotes. PW14 testified that she signed on the notebook despite no reference of the three $20 banknotes was made in the notebook because she did not know the amount of money and the quantity of banknotes had to be stated clearly.

35.  According to Exhibit P21, WPC6646 was on duty at the Loss Counter of the Police Station from 1400 hours to 2245 hours on 26 June 2010. At 2100 hours on the same day, WPC6646 opened a file to handle a found property case which was passed to her by the defendant who told WPC6646 that the property was handed in by PW14. Thirteen items were passed by the defendant to WPC6646 for further handling but no money was passed by the defendant to WPC6646.

36.  PW16 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 7. At about 5:45 pm on 26 June 2010, she had taken a bus. She paid the bus fare by her Octopus card placed inside her wallet. After she had used the Octopus card for payment, she put her wallet in her sports pants. A few days later, she was told by a friend that someone had found her wallet and taken it to the Police Station. She asked her brother PW17 to go to the Police Station to get her wallet back. After PW17 had collected her wallet and returned it to PW16, she found that $60 was missing from her wallet.

37.  PW17 collected PW16’s wallet on her behalf from the Police Station. When he collected it from the Police Station and checked the contents of the wallet, there was no money in the wallet.

38.  The relevant entry in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 7 (Exhibits P9A and P9B) is from line 7 on page 112 to the end of page 113 with the entry marked with the time “2045” in which it was recorded that the wallet picked up by PW14 contained an identity card of PW16’s, “some name cards and bank cards etc.”. It was also recorded at the entry marked with the time “2055” that he had handed over the property to WPC6646.

39.  Paragraphs 507 to 613 of Exhibit P3D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 7. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:

(i) He did not quite remember that case or have much recollection about that case;

(ii) When asked by the interviewing officer why there was no mention of $60 in his notebook entry, the defendant replied that he really did not know and that probably there was none; and

(iii) When asked by the interviewing officer about the cash, the defendant said, “None, if nothing was written here, that means none.” The defendant further said that he did not make any record of money because there was no money handed to him.

Charge 8

40.  PW26 was a taxi driver. On the afternoon of 26 June 2010, a passenger in the rear seat handed PW26 a wallet saying that he (the passenger) found it on the rear seat. PW26 said there was a buckle on the wallet and it was very tight. He saw the edge of a brown colour banknote in the wallet, but he did not see the denomination of that banknote. When PW26 completed his shift at about 4:30 pm, he took the wallet to the Police Station. He gave the wallet to the police officer at the reception desk. That officer opened the wallet and checked each of the compartments of the wallet. That officer did not take out the banknote from the wallet. PW26 signed on the officer’s notebook but he only took a glance at the notebook before he signed. No receipt was given to PW26 for handing in the wallet.

41.  According to Exhibit P20, WPC6646 was on duty at the Loss Counter of the Police Station from 1400 hours to 2245 hours on 26 June 2010. At 1925 hours on the same day, WPC6646 opened a file to handle a found property case which was passed to her by the defendant who told WPC6646 that the property was handed in by PW26. Fifteen items of found property were passed by the defendant to WPC6646 for further handling but no money was passed by the defendant to WPC6646.

42.  Siu was the owner of the wallet in Charge 8. According to Exhibit P25, Siu lost his wallet on 26 June 2010. Amongst other things, he had one $500 banknote, a few $100 banknotes and a few $20 banknotes totaling about $1,000 and an Octopus card in his wallet before he had lost his wallet. He made a report at the Police Station in the early hours of 27 June 2010. On the morning of 27 June 2010, he received a phone call from the Police Station saying that someone had picked up his wallet. He went to collect his wallet at about 6:30 pm on 28 June 2010. When he checked the contents of his wallet, he found that the money of about $1,000 and his Octopus card were missing.

43.  The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 8 (Exhibits P9A and P9B) are from line 4 on page 110 to line 6 on page 112 with the entries marked with the times “1715”, “1800”, “1900” and “1920”. At the entry marked with the time “1715”, it was recorded that the wallet picked up by PW26 contained Siu’s identity card, “documents, some bank cards, etc.”. It was the defendant’s meal time between 1800 hours and 1900 hours and his duty was relieved by WPC10942. It was recorded at the entry marked with the time “1920’ that “the above property was handed over to WPC6646 …”.

44.  Paragraphs 305 to 424 of Exhibit P5D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 8. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:

(i) He could not remember the circumstances when PW26 had brought the found property to the Report Room; and

(ii) He could not remember whether he had tried to contact the owner of the wallet.

Charge 10

45.  On the morning of 15 July 2010, PW20 picked up a wallet on the pavement outside Shing Ka House, Kwai Shing East Estate. He found that the wallet contained a student card, a library card, an Octopus card and two or three pieces of $10 or $20 banknotes with a total amount of less than $60 or $70. PW20 then took it to the Police Station in the early afternoon on 15 July 2010. He handed the wallet to a police officer. That officer opened the wallet and took out the contents in front of PW20. When the officer was checking the contents of the wallet, the banknotes were still there. The officer made a record in his notebook but PW20 had no idea of what the officer had written down. The officer appeared to read out the contents of the notebook entry to PW20 but PW20 only listened to what the officer said without looking at the notebook entry; PW20 therefore did not know whether the officer was actually reading out the exact contents contained in the notebook. PW20 signed on the notebook without reading it because the officer did not ask him to read the contents – he only asked PW20 to sign on the notebook. After PW20 had signed on the notebook, he left the Police Station. No receipt was given to PW20.

46.  According to Exhibit P22, PC9312 was on duty at the Loss Counter of the Police Station from 1400 hours to 2245 hours on 15 July 2010. At 1533 hours, the defendant reported to PC9312 that PW20 had found a wallet outside Shing Ka House, Kwai Shing East Estate at about 1330 hours on the same day. PC9312 checked the wallet and found that the wallet contained 8 other items, none of which was money.

47.  PW21 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 10. He lost his wallet on 15 July 2010 in Kwai Fong. At 3 pm on the same day, he received a phone call from the Police Station saying that someone had found his wallet. He went to the Police Station to collect his wallet a few days later. He found that about $100 originally in his wallet was missing.

48.  The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 10 (Exhibits P10A and P10B) are from line 1 on page 13 to line 13 on page 14 with the entries marked with the times “1415” and “1533”. At the entry marked with the time “1415”, it was recorded that the defendant handled PW20’s report of having picked up a wallet in which there were an identity card of PW21, “some documents, three bank cards and a Home Return Card”. At the entry marked with “1533”, it was recorded that the defendant handed “the above property” to PC9312 for handling.

49.  Paragraphs 511 to 580 of Exhibit P5D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 10. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:

(i) He could not remember the circumstances where PW20 handed in the wallet at 1415 hours on 15 July 2010; and

(ii) When the interviewing officer asked the defendant if he could remember there was any money in the property handed in by PW20, the defendant said he could not remember, and that if he had not written it down, it probably had none.

Charge 11

50.  At about 11 pm on a Saturday in mid-July 2010, PW22 was travelling with her husband on a mini-bus from Peng Shek Estate to Choi Fai Estate. She saw that a female passenger drop her wallet when that passenger was alighting from the mini-bus. PW22 called out loudly to that passenger to get her attention but that passenger did not seem to hear PW22. PW22 therefore picked up that wallet. She checked the contents inside to see if there was information so that she could contact the wallet owner. Inside the wallet she found an identity card, about $100 in $20 banknotes, bank cards and some slips. As PW22 could not reach the wallet owner, she took the wallet to the Police Station the next Sunday. She approached a police officer at a small desk on the right hand side of the Police Station. She handed the wallet to that police officer. When she handed the wallet over to the police officer, the banknotes were still in the wallet. The officer did not take out the contents of the wallet. After PW22 had signed on a piece of paper, she left the Police Station.

51.  According to Exhibit P23, PC8959 was on duty at the Loss Counter of the Police Station from 1400 hours to 2245 hours on 18 July 2010. At 1445 hours on 18 July 2010, the defendant handed over PW23’s identity card, an Octopus card, personal documents, one card cover and one Bank of China card to PC8959 for further handling. It was not mentioned in Exhibit P23 that the defendant had handed over money to PC8959 for handling.

52.  PW23 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 11. At about mid-night on 18 July 2010, she took a mini-bus at Peng Shek Estate. She took out her wallet to pay for the bus fare. At about 3:30 pm on 18 July 2010, she realized that her wallet was missing. PW23 testified that before she had lost her wallet, there were an ATM card, an Octopus card, two receipts from ATM machine(s) and cash of about $300 (consisting of one $100 banknote, two $50 banknotes, one $10 banknote and some $20 banknotes) in her wallet. At about 3 pm on 22 July 2010, PW23 received a phone call from the Property Office of the Police Station telling her to collect her wallet from the Police Station. PW23 went to the Police Station at about 4 pm on the same day. She checked the contents of her wallet and found that all money was gone.    

53.  The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 11 (Exhibits P10A and P10B) are from line 12 on page 15 to line 11 on page 17 with the entries marked with the times “1400” and “1500”. At the entry marked with the time “1400”, it was recorded that the wallet contained an identity card of PW23’s and “personalized Octopus card etc.” At the entry marked with the time “1500”, it was recorded that “the above property was handed to PC8959 for handling”.

54.  Paragraphs 581 to 642 of Exhibit P5D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 11. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:

(i) He could not remember the circumstances when PW22 handed in the wallet to him; and

(ii) When asked by the interviewing officer whether there was any money in the wallet, the defendant said if he had not written it down, it probably had none.

Charge 12

55.  At about 3 pm in mid-July 2010 when PW6 was on board a mini-bus from Tsz Wan Shan to Mong Kok, she picked up a wallet. Amongst other things, PW6 found cash of about $180 inside the wallet. She went to the Police Station at about 3:30 pm on the same day. She approached a police officer who was seated at a desk on the right hand side of the Report Room. She handed the wallet to that officer who checked the wallet by spreading the contents of the wallet, including the money, onto the desk. Soon afterwards, that officer asked PW6 to sign on his notebook. PW6 signed on the notebook without reading the contents contained therein. PW6 left the Police Station afterwards. No receipt was given to her.

56.  PW7 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 12. There were about $150 cash, her identity card, China Home Re-entry permit, HSBC ATM card and a photo in her wallet before she had lost it. After she had realized that she had lost her wallet, she told her father to stop her ATM card. As the items in her wallet were not really valuable, she did not make any lost property report to the police. No one had ever informed her to collect her wallet from the Police Station. She had never got back her wallet from the Police Station.

57.  The relevant entry in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 12 is the entry marked with the time “1550” from line 5 on page 32 to line 13 on page 33 in Exhibits P10A and P10B. That entry was part of the defendant’s record for events happened on 25 July 2010. It was recorded at that entry that the wallet contained an identity card of PW7’s. There was no mention of money at that entry.

58.  Paragraphs 885 to 1035 of Exhibit P5D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 12. In the interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:

(i) He could not remember the circumstances when PW6 came to the Police Station to make a found property report;

(ii) Apart from the identity card of PW7 in the wallet, there was nothing else. There was no money;

(iii) After PW6 had handed over the wallet to him, he had kept it and to be handed over to Property Officer later; and

(iv) When the interviewing officer asked the defendant that there was no record in the defendant’s notebook that the wallet and identity card had been passed to other colleague for further handling, the defendant said “Normally, probably, I handed it over to the Property Office”. He said maybe he had not made an entry but he had definitely handed it over to the Property Office.

Charge 13

59.  At about 6:50 pm on 7 August 2010, PW24 picked up a wallet outside President Commercial Centre at Nathan Road near Soy Street. He opened the wallet and saw that there were some credit cards, $120 cash, cards, name cards, etc in the wallet. At about 7:25 pm on the same day, he arrived at the Police Station to make a found property report. He reported to the police officer seated at the desk on the right hand side of the Report Room that he had found a wallet. PW24 handed over the wallet to the officer. The officer took everything out of the wallet and put them on the desk to show them to PW24. Amongst other items, there was $120 cash (made up of one $100 banknote and one $20 banknote) shown to PW24. The officer also said there was $120. The officer appeared to record in a notebook of what was found. PW24 only saw part of the officer’s notebook record. When he intended to read the notebook, the officer told PW24 that it was alright/no problem and asked PW24 to sign. PW24 did not read the notebook entry carefully.  PW24 also testified that the characters in the notebook entry were quite illegible.

60.  According to Exhibit P24, PC10347 was on duty at the Loss Counter of the Police Station from 1400 hours to 2245 hours on 7 August 2010. At 1952 hours on 7 August 2010, the defendant handed over a wallet, some personal documents, a SIM card, two invoices, a direct debit authorization form, one Bank of China card and one identity card to PC10347 for handling. The defendant told PC10347 that the aforesaid property was picked up by PW24 outside President Commercial Centre. It was not mentioned in Exhibit P24 that the defendant had handed over money to PC10347 for handling.

61.  PW25 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 13. He lost his wallet on 7 August 2010. There was $500 (in the form of five $100 banknotes) in his wallet before he lost it. On 9 August 2010, PW25 received a phone call from the Bank of China telling PW25 that he could retrieve his wallet from the Police Station. PW25 went to the Police Station to collect his wallet on the same day. When he got back his wallet from the police, he found that all his $500 was missing.

62.  The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 13 (Exhibits P10A and P10B) are the two entries marked with the times “1925” and “1952” from line 10 on page 51 to line 13 on page 53. At the entry marked with the time “1925”, it was recorded that the wallet contained PW25’s identity card, “some documents, cards, etc”. There was no mention of money at that entry. At the entry marked with the time “1952”, it recorded that “the above property was handed over to PC10347 for handling and recording”.

63.  Paragraphs 922 to 1149 of Exhibit P4D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 13. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:

(i) He could not remember the circumstances when he was handling the found property;

(ii) He could not remember if there was any money. If there was money, he would have written it down;

(iii) When the interviewing officer asked the defendant whether, when there was money, he would only write “money” without specifying the amount, the defendant said he would write down “money” as well as the amount; but if it was only $2 or $3, he would just write “money” without specifying the amount. The defendant went on and said that where it was only $1 or $2, it would not be recorded; and

(iv) When the interviewing officer asked the defendant why he wrote “document” and “cards” but not the amount of money, the defendant said it might be too busy and he momentarily forgot.

Charge 14

64.  At about 11:15 am on 11 August 2010 whilst PW28, a then Form 5 student, was walking along a footbridge at Embankment Road near Boundary Street with her two other classmates (one being PW29), she saw a wallet on the footbridge. She picked up the wallet, opened it, looked inside the wallet and saw that there were three or four $100 banknotes, one $500 banknote, some name cards, bank cards and a China Home Re-entry Permit inside the wallet. PW28 did not take the contents out. PW28 and her two other classmates took the wallet to the Police Station to make a found property report. They arrived at the Police Station at about 11:45 am on the same day. They went to the Reception Counter on the right hand side of the Report Room. PW28 told the police officer there that she had picked up a wallet. She placed the wallet on the desk. The police officer took out several cards from the wallet but he did not take out the cash from the wallet. The officer then wrote something on his notebook which was then signed by PW29. No receipt was given to PW28 or her classmates before they left. PW28 testified that between the time when the wallet was picked up on the footbridge and the time when it was handed over to the police officer, nothing was dropped or taken out of the wallet.

65.  In cross-examination, PW28 testified inter alia that the wallet was wet when she found the wallet on the footbridge, and that the items taken out by the police officer were wet. It was suggested to PW28 that when the police officer took the items out of the wallet, there were only one $500 banknote and one $100 banknote in the wallet. PW28 disagreed. PW28 also disagreed having told the police officer that she (or they) were in a hurry to go back to school. 

66.  PW29 was with PW28 and another classmate on the footbridge at the material time. PW29 had looked inside the wallet and found that there were a China Home Re-entry Permit, credit cards, several $100 banknotes and two $500 banknotes (one of the $500 banknotes was placed in the inner compartment of the wallet). Then the three of them went to the Police Station to make a found property report. The wallet was handed over to the police officer who was on the right hand side of the Report Room. In the presence of PW29 and her two other classmates, the police officer took out the China Home Re-entry Permit and credit cards from the wallet but he did not take out the cash from the wallet. The police officer made a record on his notebook and asked PW29 to sign. PW29 signed on the notebook. PW29 testified that the characters in the notebook entry were very illegible, and that she could only recognize the characters “回鄉證” (meaning “China Home Re-entry permit”). No receipt was given to PW29 or her classmates. PW29 testified that between the time when the wallet was picked up on the footbridge and the time the wallet was handed over to the police officer, nothing was dropped out from the wallet. PW29 testified that when they had picked up the wallet, they took out the China Home Re-entry permit and credit cards from the wallet in order to try to locate the owner. As for the cash inside the wallet, PW29 testified that they had taken a look without taking the cash out of the wallet. 

67.  In cross-examination, PW29 testified that after PW28 had handed over the wallet to the police officer, the police officer took out part of the items from the wallet. PW29 also testified that after the police officer had written down the record on his notebook, the officer did not read out the notebook entry to them. When asked about whether she had read the notebook entry herself, PW29 testified that because the characters were very illegible, she could only recognize the characters “回鄉證” (meaning “China Home Re-entry permit”). When Mr Loftus suggested to PW29 that in terms of cash, there were only one $500 banknote and one $100 banknote handed over to the police officer, PW29 disagreed. 

68.  PW27 was the owner of the wallet in Charge 14. He lost his wallet on 11 August 2010. At about 11 am that day, he was on his way to work. When he approached Embankment Road near Boundary Street, it was raining heavily. Because of that, PW27 changed his shoes and took new shoes out of his knapsack on the footbridge. He did not notice anything was missing at that time. At about 12:30 pm on the same day, he got a phone call from a police officer from the Police Station asking whether PW27 had lost his wallet. PW27 then checked his knapsack and found that his wallet was missing. The police officer then told PW27 to go to the Report Room of the Police Station to get his wallet back. PW27 went to the Police Station at about 1 pm on the same day. He was received by the police officer at the enquiry/reception counter on the right hand side of the Police Station. PW27 told that officer who he was and that he wanted to get his wallet back. The officer then produced the wallet from a transparent plastic bag. The items inside the wallet had already been taken out and placed in that transparent plastic bag. The officer asked PW27 to check the items. They were items which had been in PW27’s wallet. When PW27 checked the items, he found that there was $501 (in the form of a $500 banknote and a $1 coin) and some miscellaneous items. PW27 testified that he used to put $500 in an inner compartment of his wallet. PW27 testified that the other cash (of about $4,000 or $4,000 odd in $100 banknotes and $500 banknotes put at the other side of the wallet) was missing. As PW27 found that money was missing, he complained to the police officer. The officer told PW27 that it was already like that when the finder picked up the wallet. PW27 signed on the officer’s notebook to acknowledge receipt of his wallet without writing down that some money was missing. PW27 then left the Police Station.

69.  In cross-examination, PW27 testified that when the police officer produced the wallet to PW27, the wallet was not wet. PW27 also agreed that in addition to the $500 banknote and $1 coin, there was also a $100 banknote which was placed in another compartment of his wallet.

70.  The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 14 (Exhibits P10A and P10B) are the two entries marked with the times “1150” and “1305” from line 14 on page 57 to line 5 on page 61. At the entry marked with the time “1150”, it was recorded that the wallet contained PW27’s identity card, documents, some money and some credit cards. At the entry marked with the time “1305”, it was recorded that PW27 collected the wallet containing cards and “the said property”, and that PW27 “counted that nothing was lost” and signed to confirm.

71.  Paragraphs 1152 to 1542 of Exhibit P4D contain the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and they relate to Charge 14. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:

(i) According to his notebook entry, the wallet handed over to him by PW29 contained PW27’s identity card, documents, some money and some credit cards;

(ii) He could not remember clearly the course of the reporting of the found property;

(iii) When the interviewing officer asked the defendant how much money was handed over to him, the defendant said he had no idea;

(iv) When the interviewing officer asked again how much money was recovered, the defendant said he really could not remember. Then he said it was $500 odd to $600. He said the money had been tucked very secretly and she (presumably PW29) had no idea where it was tucked, that the $500 was not detected during counting, and that when he recovered it later, he instantly informed him (presumably the owner PW27) to come to collect it. He said the $500 to $600 was discovered by him at the very end and not in front of PW29, that he found it out at the very last moment but she had already left, that PW29 did not see him recovering the money. When the interviewing officer asked the defendant whether any other money was found except the $500 to $600 he recovered, the defendant answered in the negative;

(v) As the defendant said PW29 did not see him recover the money from the hidden part of the wallet, the interviewing officer asked the defendant why he wrote “some money” on his notebook. The defendant said it was because there were some coins there. Then he said when he made the notebook entry, it seemed to be a $100 banknote there but he could not recall;

(vi) The interviewing officer asked the defendant why he did not write down the amount of money, the defendant said it was because the finder was “in a rush, hurried to leave” and maybe he had omitted to write it down; and

(vii) PW27 had collected his wallet, “counted the property without error/anything wrong”, and signed the notebook in confirmation.

Charge 15

72.  PW3 worked as a cleaner at Hang Seng Bank in Nathan Road (the “Bank”). At about noon on 23 August 2010 when PW3 was doing cleaning work near the ATM machines on the ground floor of the Bank, she saw that there was some money at the money-collecting slot at the ATM machine. She took the money to Leung, senior teller of the Bank, told Leung that she had picked up some money at the ATM machine and gave the money to Leung. Leung counted that it was $400 in the form of four $100 banknotes. Leung told PW3 to take the money to the Police Station. PW3 therefore took the $400 to the Police Station by holding the four $100 banknotes with her fingers on her left hand without folding the banknotes up.

73.  Having arrived at the Police Station, she told the police officer that she had picked up some money at an ATM machine. The officer asked PW3 how much it was. PW3 said $400. When she told the officer that the amount of money was $400, the money was still in PW3’s hand. PW3 handed the money to the officer who then counted the money. The handing over of the $400 happened before PW3 signed on the officer’s notebook. PW3 confirmed that the signature in lines 12 and 13 on page 85 of Exhibit P10A (i.e. the signature just on top of the entry marked with the time “1444”) was her own signature. As the two initials “杜 (TO)” on lines 2 and 3 on the left margin on page 85, PW3 testified that none of them was her initial. She said she did not make any initial there. PW3 testified that if she was asked to make an initial, she would write down a Chinese character “云 (WAN)” being the last character of her name. PW3 testified that when she signed on that notebook, she did not notice that there was a crossing out of “400” and a replacement of “200” on top of the “400” on line 2 of page 85. After she had signed the notebook, she left the Police Station for the Bank without being given any receipt.

74.  When she had returned to the Bank, Leung asked her why she did not get any receipt. Leung then told PW3 to go to the Police Station again to take a receipt. PW3 therefore went back to the Police Station and spoke to the police officer to whom she had handed the money. The officer wrote her a receipt which PW3 in turn passed it to Leung at the Bank.

75.  When Mr Ryan asked PW3 whether it was possible that she had dropped some of the money whilst she was on her way to the Police Station, PW3 said it was impossible. She said she had held the money tightly in her hand.

76.  During cross-examination on PW3 by Mr Loftus, PW3 testified that:

(i) The Bank was close to the Police Station. It was just two streets away from the Police Station. The streets were not busy streets;

(ii) It was impossible that she had dropped some of the money because she held it tightly in her fingers;

(iii) When she was in the Police Station, she was not in a hurry. Neither did she tell the police officer that she was in a hurry;

(iv) She had given the money to the police officer before the officer wrote on his notebook; and

(v) When it was suggested to PW3 that she had only handed $200 to the police officer, PW3 said she had handed $400 to the police officer.

77.  According to Exhibit P16, PC11023 was on duty at the Loss Counter of the Police Station from 1400 hours to 2245 hours on 23 August 2010. At 1435 hours on the same day, the defendant handed over two $100 banknotes totaling $200 to PC11023 saying that it was picked up by someone. The defendant also wrote on a piece of paper, inter alia, that the finder was PW3. PC11023 then opened a case file with reference number RN10041951 and passed the $200 to the Property Office of the Police Station.

78.  Ho withdrew $400 from an ATM machine installed at the Bank at the junction of Prince Edward Road and Nathan Road at 12:04 hours on 23 August 2010: Exhibits P14 and P15. Towards the end of the transaction, she took back her card and a receipt but she forgot to take the $400 from the money-collecting slot. She went to the Bank to make enquiries in the afternoon on the same day. She was told that the Bank would follow up the matter. After leaving her contact information, she left the Bank. On the morning of 24 August 2010, Ho was told by a staff of the Bank that her $400 had been handed over to the Police Station. A police reference number was also given to Ho by that staff. Ho went to the Police Station on the afternoon of 24 August 2010 intending to get her $400 back. Ho was received by WPC56835. Ho told WPC56835 the police reference number but WPC56835 told Ho that the amount of money on police record was not $400.  

79.  The relevant entries in the defendant’s notebook in relation to Charge 15 (Exhibits P10A and P10B from line 7 on page 84 to line 2 on page 86) are the two entries marked with the times “1215” and “1444”. At the entry marked with the time “1215”, it was recorded that PW3 picked up “some $200” at an ATM machine of Hang Seng Bank and took it to the Police Station to make a report. It is noted from that entry that the “$200” was a correction written on top of a group of deleted figures, that there was an initial on each of lines 1, 2 and 3 on the left margin of page 85, and that the initials on lines 2 and 3 on the left margin of page 85 were both “杜 (TO)”. At the entry marked with the time “1444”, it was recorded that “the above property, $200, was handed over to PC11023 with RN10041951”.

80.  Exhibit P2D contains the certified English translation of the transcript of the video-recorded interview with the defendant and it relates to Charge 15. In that interview, the defendant said, inter alia, that:

(i) At the material time, he was responsible for the Report Room Reception Counter commonly known as classification. If people came to report, he would serve him and classify the nature of their report;

(ii) His desk was on the first desk on the right upon entering the Report Room;

(iii) Behind his desk there were three counters occupied by “Tai Lau (睇樓)”, Assistant Duty Officer (“ADO”) and the officer in charge of the Loss Counter. The duty hours of the officer in charge of the Loss Counter were from 2 pm to10:45 pm.;

(iv) If the “Tai Lau”, ADO and the officer in charge of the Loss Counter were busy and if the citizens were in a hurry, the defendant would handle the found property or lost property reports for the convenience of the citizens. The defendant would record the incident in his notebook and then hand it over to “Tai Lau” or the Loss Counter;

(v) When the defendant went off duty, he had to inform the ADO and let the ADO sign on the defendant’s notebook for acknowledgement telling the ADO that the defendant was going to go off duty;

(vi) At about 12:15 pm on 23 August 2010, PW3 came to the Police Station telling the defendant that she had picked up $400. The defendant told PW3 to wait for his colleagues to make a record for PW3. At that time, both the ADO and “Tai Lau” were busy working. PW3 told the defendant that she was in a hurry and asked the defendant to take the money. The defendant therefore agreed to handle the case. PW3 told him that she had picked up $400 at an ATM machine of Hang Seng Bank. The defendant then took out his notebook and asked PW3 to produce her identity card and recorded the information in his notebook;

(vii) When PW3 told the defendant that she had picked up $400, she was holding the money in her right hand;

(viii) After he had recorded the report in his notebook, he read it over to PW3 and then received the money. However, what PW3 handed over to him were two $100 notes. The defendant asked PW3 why there were two banknotes only. PW3 said, “Aiya, sorry, I haven’t counted it.” Then the defendant crossed out “400” written on his notebook, replaced it with “200” and signed on the notebook. Having let PW3 read the notebook entry, he asked her to initial at the margin where the “400” was deleted and sign at the bottom;

(ix) When the interviewing officer asked the defendant why he did not count the money before making his notebook record, the defendant said it was because he believed PW3;

(x) The first initial “杜 (TO)” was made by the defendant and PW3 made her initial “杜 (TO)” under that initial “杜 (TO)”. The defendant said he signed the initial “杜 (TO)” because PW3 did not know where to sign her initial; and

(xi) After he had received the $200 from PW3, he did not give her any receipt because she refused to receive it. But PW3 returned to the Police Station at sometime after 5 pm saying to the defendant, “Ah Sir, I want to get the 68D”. He subsequently gave PW3 a Pol 720 on which the report number 10041951 was stated.

No case to answer – Charges 1 and 9

81.  As the respective owners of the wallets in relation to Charges 1 and 9 did not testify and the prosecution offered no further evidence on Charges 1 and 9, I ruled no case to answer in respect of those two charges. The defendant is therefore acquitted on those two charges.

Case to answer – Charges 2 to 8 and 10 to 15

82.  In relation to the remaining 13 charges, I found a prima facie case for each of those charges and ruled a case to answer for each of those charges. I will set out my observations on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses later in this judgment.

THE DEFENCE CASE

83.  In his evidence-in-chief, the defendant testified, inter alai, that:

(i) He is a senior police constable and he joined the police force in 1984;

(ii) He took up the post as a Report Room Receptionist at the Police Station since 2006. He was in that post at all material times. He was responsible for dealing with civilians who came to make reports and to conduct triage;

(iii) He had received commendations/awards as shown in Exhibits D1 to D4;

(iv) If a person came to the Police Station to make a found property report, he would arrange the person to go over to the Loss Counter. If the Loss Counter was not open yet, he would arrange for that person to go over to “Tai Lau” or the ADO so that those officers could deal with the found property report. If the officer at the Loss Counter, “Tai Lau” and the ADO were unavailable, e.g. if they were busy, then the defendant would collect the property from the finder, make a record on his notebook and try his best to locate the property owner in the presence of the property finder. If he could locate the owner, he would ask the owner to go to the Police Station to collect the property as soon as possible. If he could not locate the owner or if the owner could not go to the Police Station immediately, he would hand over the property to the Loss Counter/Property Office for disposal;

(v) As his desk did not have a computer, he was unable to issue a receipt, namely Pol 68D, to the finder. If the finder needs a receipt, he would take the finder to the Loss Counter where a receipt could be issued. If the Loss Counter was not open yet, then only the “Tai Lau” and the ADO could issue a receipt to the finder. The defendant would then send the finder to one of the three officers, i.e. “Tai Lau”, the ADO or the officer in charge of the Loss Counter;

(vi) If the defendant could locate the owner of the found property and the owner said he would come collect the property within hours, the defendant would keep the property and wait for the owner to come collect it. He would keep the found property in his pocket or the drawer at his desk. When he was away for lunch or washroom, he would tell his colleagues, including his partner and the ADO, that he was holding the found property so that when the owner came to collect the property, the ADO could inform the defendant to return to the Report Room immediately to pass the property back to the owner;

(vii) The defendant explained that he did not take the found property to the Loss Counter or the Property Office for the sake of convenience for the owner;

(viii) When the owner came to collect his property, the defendant would ask the owner to sign an acknowledgement on his notebook. The defendant would not be able to issue a receipt to the owner either;

(ix) If towards the end of the defendant’s shift, the owner of the found property had not come to collect his property, the defendant would hand the property to the Loss Counter for disposal. He would not take the property home;

(x) At the end of his shift, he would produce his notebook to the ADO who would read the defendant’s notebook and sign on the notebook. The ADO would be aware of the found property and how the defendant disposed of the found property;

(xi) In relation to Charge 15, when PW3 came to the Police Station at about 12:15 pm on 23 August 2010, the Loss Counter was not open yet. His colleagues at the back were also very busy. The defendant therefore handled the report made by PW3. At the beginning, PW3 told the defendant that she had picked up $400 at an ATM machine. The defendant then recorded PW3’s report, including the picking up of $400, in his notebook and jotted down PW3’s particulars. After he had finished making record in his notebook, he read it over to PW3. When PW3 was relating how she found the money, he simply saw her holding something but he did not see whether it was money or not. After he had read his notebook entry out to PW3, he asked PW3 to give him the $400. However, only two $100 banknotes were handed over to him by PW3. The defendant therefore told PW3 that there were only two $100 banknotes. PW3 said, “Aiya! Sorry. I did not count it.” The defendant then amended his notebook entry by crossing out “400” in his notebook and replaced it with “200”. He then signed on the notebook at the margin on line 1 of page 85. PW3 told the defendant she did not know how to sign. The defendant told PW3 just to sign her surname; but PW3 still did not understand how to sign. The defendant therefore wrote down the Chinese character “杜 (TO)” at the margin and asked PW3 to sign under the Chinese character “杜 (TO)” written by the defendant at the margin. After PW3 signed the Chinese character “杜 (TO)” at the margin, he also asked PW3 to sign at the bottom of the notebook entry. PW3 did so. PW3 left afterwards. The defendant tucked the $200 in his notebook and put the notebook tucked with $200 in his right front uniform pocket. At 1444 hours, he gave the money to PC11023. Later that day, PW3 came back to the Police Station and asked for a document as a proof of her report. He tried to get her a Pol 68B but to no avail as both the officer in charge of the Loss Counter and the officer in charge of the Property Office were unavailable. The defendant therefore wrote down the report number 10041951 on a small report record card called Pol 720. The defendant denied having stolen $200, the subject matter in relation to Charge 15;

(xii) In relation to Charge 2, the defendant testified that he had to read the relevant notebook entry to recall the incident. He testified that if money was not recorded in his notebook entry, it meant that no money was handed over to him. He testified that although it was not mentioned in the notebook entry that he had advised PW5 of his right to claim the found property in 3 months if it was not claimed by the owner, he had definitely told PW5 about it. The defendant denied having stolen $500, the subject matter in relation to Charge 2;

(xiii) In relation to Charge 3, the defendant admitted in his evidence that he wrote down “money” in the relevant notebook entry but he testified that he did not think there was any money, that he had probably made a mistake on the notebook. He continued and testified that perhaps there were coins. Later in his evidence, the defendant said that probably there was money of about $20 to $30, and that he did not record $20 to $30 in his notebook perhaps because he did not notice it. He testified that after 1300 hours that day when he had not received any reply from the card centre as to whether the owner had been located, he had arranged the found property to be put into a valuable property bags one by one before handing them over to the Property Office. When he was doing it, the owner came to collect the found property. The defendant testified that he could not recall whether the owner, i.e. PW9, had said to him that money was missing. He testified that when PW9 collected his wallet, there was only $20 odd left. The defendant denied having stolen money belonging to PW9, the subject matter of Charge 3;

(xiv) In relation to Charge 4, the defendant testified that other than the record in his notebook, he had no independent memory of the incident. Relying on the record in his notebook, the defendant testified that no money was handed in by PW11. The defendant denied having stolen money from PW10;

(xv) In relation to Charge 5, the defendant testified that other than the record in his notebook, he had no independent memory of the incident. Relying on the record in his notebook, the defendant testified that no money was handed in by PW13;

(xvi) In relation to Charge 6, the defendant testified that other than the record in his notebook, he had no independent memory of the incident. He testified that in his notebook, he recorded credit card(s), some money and documents. He testified that he could not remember whether there was any money in the wallet. As to the video-recorded interview in which the defendant denied there was any money in the card-holder, the defendant testified that probably he had made a written error, and that he should have written down the figure if there was money. He testified that there was no money in the card-holder;

(xvii) In relation to Charge 7, the defendant testified that if there had been cash in the wallet, he would have recorded it in his notebook;

(xviii)In relation to Charge 8, the defendant testified that other than the record in his notebook, he had no independent memory of the incident. Relying on the record in his notebook, the defendant testified that there was no mention of money in his notebook, and that he would have recorded it in his notebook if there had been money in the wallet;

(xix) In relation to Charge 10, the defendant testified that there was no mention of money in the notebook thus indicating that there was no money in the wallet. The defendant denied having taken money from the wallet;

(xx) In relation to Charge 11, the defendant testified that other than the record in his notebook, he had no independent memory of the incident. Relying on the record in his notebook, the defendant testified that there was no mention of money in the notebook thus indicating that there was no money in the wallet;

(xxi) In relation to Charge 12, the defendant testified that there was no mention of money in his notebook, and that he had definitely handed over the wallet to the Loss Counter for further disposal although he could not find a record stating that he had handed the wallet over to any other colleague. The defendant denied having stolen money from PW7’s wallet or disposed of PW7’s wallet in any way;

(xxii) In relation to Charge 13, the defendant testified that other than the record in his notebook, he had no independent memory of the incident. Relying on the record in his notebook, the defendant testified that there was no mention of money in the notebook thus indicating that there was no money in the wallet;

(xxiii)In relation to Charge 14, the defendant testified that other than the record in his notebook, he had no independent memory of the incident. Relying on the record in his notebook in which it stated the wallet contained inter alia “some money”, the defendant testified that he had returned $601 (being one $500 banknote, one $100 banknote and one $1 coin) to PW27, and that the $500 banknote was in an inner compartment of PW27’s wallet;

(xxiv)In relation to all the remaining 13 charges, the defendant denied having stolen money from the respective owners; and

(xxv) The defendant explained that he did not specify the amount of money in his notebook because he was too busy, that some finders had hurried him to finish the task because they would like to go away, that many finders just put the found property down and would like to go immediately, that for the sake of convenience, the defendant tried to write faster so that the finders could go away soon.

84.  In cross-examination, the defendant testified, inter alia, that:

(i) In relation to Charge 3, from beginning to end, he really could not remember how much money there was in the wallet. He testified that he could not remember whether there were no banknotes or coins in the wallet when PW9 collected his wallet from him; and

(ii) In relation to Charge 15, the defendant testified that when he was recording the report in his notebook, PW3 was still holding the banknotes. He did not ask PW3 to show him the money first before he recorded it in his notebook because PW3 was a staff of the Bank, she had told him more than three times that she had picked up $400 and he believed her. The Pol 720 he gave PW3 was a small white card stating the report number without stating details of the found property.

85.  In re-examination, the defendant testified that at all material times, there was CCTV system installed to record activities at the Report Room all round the clock.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE

86.  In analyzing evidence in this case, I bear in mind that the defendant is a person of good character and has received various commendations/awards as shown in Exhibits D1 to D4, that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and that the standard of proof is beyond all reasonable doubts. I also bear in mind that each of the charges against the defendant must be considered and dealt with separately.

The defendant’s evidence

87.  I have the following observations on the defendant’s evidence:

(i) (a) In relation to Charge 3, the defendant’s notebook entry recorded that the wallet handed over to him by PW8 contained “money”: the entry marked with the time “1145” from line 14 on page 14 to line 1 on page 16 of Exhibits P8A and P8B.

(b) During the video-recorded interview, the defendant at first said he could not recall the amount of money that was handed over to him: paragraph 299 of Exhibit P4D. Then he said he could not recall if there was any money in the wallet: paragraphs 330 to 343 of Exhibit P4D. Later on in the interview, he said maybe there was very little money, that maybe it was the coins of about $20 to $30: paragraphs 602 to 607 and 614 to 629 of Exhibit P4D. When the interviewing officer asked the defendant why he did not record the amount of money, the defendant at first said he did not recall why and he was not that clear why: paragraphs 300 and 301 of Exhibit P4D. He then said perhaps it was because he wrote too fast: paragraph 315 of Exhibit P4D, that maybe he was lazy: paragraphs 346 to 353 of Exhibit P4D, and that maybe he was busy: paragraph 585 of Exhibit P4D.

(c) In the defendant’s testimony in court, at the beginning he testified that he did not think there was any money, and that he had probably made a mistake on the notebook. Later in his evidence, the defendant testified that perhaps there were coins, that probably there was money of about $20 to $30, and that he did not record $20 to $30 in his notebook perhaps because he did not notice it.

(d) Despite it was recorded in his notebook that there was money in the wallet, at the beginning the defendant testified that he did not think there was any money and that he had probably made a mistake on the notebook. Then he changed his version and said that perhaps there were coins, that probably there was money of about $20 to $30. I find the defendant’s evidence on whether there was any money in the wallet in relation to Charge 3 inconsistent.

(e) The defendant’s explanation as to why he did not record the amount of money in his notebook was also confusing and inconsistent. During the video-recorded interview, at first he said he did not recall why and he was not that clear why. He then said perhaps it was because he wrote too fast, that maybe he was lazy, and that maybe he was busy. In his evidence he testified that perhaps it was because he did not notice the money.

(f) Speaking of the defendant’s usual practice of recording details of found property in his notebook, he said in a video-recorded interview that if it was something relating to money, he would definitely mark it down and he would not fail to mark it because it was trivial: paragraph 591 of Exhibit P3D. He also said that he would write down in his notebook “money” as well as the amount; but if it was only $2 or $3, he would just write “money” without specifying the amount: paragraphs 1024 to 1047 of Exhibit P4D. The defendant’s failure to record the amount of money, i.e. the alleged $20 to $30, in his notebook and his aforesaid explanations for having failed to record the amount of money in his notebook also run contrary to his alleged usual practice that he would definitely mark down the amount of money unless it was only $2 or $3.

(ii) (a) Also on Charge 3, the defendant said in the video-recorded interview conducted on 7 October 2010 that PW9 did not tell him that money was missing: paragraph 643 of Exhibit P4D.

(b) In his evidence-in-chief, the defendant testified that he could not remember whether PW9 had told the defendant that money was missing. The defendant’s evidence-in-chief is inconsistent with what he said in the video-recorded interview.

(c) Further, during cross-examination on PW9, it was suggested by Mr Loftus that when PW9 told the police officer (from whom PW9 collected his wallet) that money was missing, the officer told PW9 that PW9 could make a further report about the missing money. The case suggested by the defence counsel is inconsistent with what the defendant said in the video-recorded interview.

(iii) (a) In relation to Charge 6, the defendant confirmed that he had recorded inter alia “some money” in his notebook.

(b) During the video-recorded interview, the defendant said the three illegible Chinese characters at the beginning of line 1 on page 97 of Exhibit P9A did not contain the Chinese characters “錢 (money)”, and that if he had written down “money” in his notebook, it might be some small change which he did not record: paragraph 582 of Exhibit P3D.

(c) In his testimony in court, although the defendant confirmed that he had recorded inter alia “some money” in his notebook, he testified that probably he had made a written error, and that there was no money in the wallet/card-holder.

(d) The defendant’s testimony that the record of “some money” in his notebook was probably a written error and that there was no money in the wallet/card-holder is inconsistent with what he said during the video-recorded interview, i.e. that if he had written down “money” in his notebook, it might be some small change which he did not record.

(iv) (a) During cross-examination on PW5 who was the finder of the wallet in relation to Charge 2 happened on 26 August 2009, it was suggested by Mr Loftus that the police officer who took the wallet from PW5 had said to PW5 that if in 3 months no one claimed the found property, PW5 could claim it.

(b) In the defendant’s testimony, he said although it was not mentioned in the relevant notebook entry that he had advised PW5 of his right to claim the found property in 3 months if it was not claimed by the owner, he had definitely told PW5 about it.

(c) However, in the video-recorded interview with the defendant conducted on 7 October 2010, when the interviewing officer asked him why, in relation to Charge 3 (happened on 22 December 2009), there was no reference in his notebook of the finder’s right to claim the found property if no one claimed it in 90 days, the defendant answered that it was because at that time, i.e. 22 December 2009, he had not come to know it yet and that he really had no idea in the past: paragraphs766 to 777 of Exhibit P4D.

(d) The defendant’s answer in the video-recorded interview that as of 22 December 2009, he had not come to know that he had to advise the finder of the aforesaid right to claim the found property is inconsistent with the defendant’s testimony that he had definitely told PW5 of his right to claim the found property in 3 months if it was not claimed by the owner when PW5 handed in the found property in August 2009.

(v) (a) In relation to Charge 15, the defendant said in the video-recorded interview and his testimony that he counted the money held by PW3 only after he had finished making his notebook record. He said he did so because he believed PW3.

(b) However, in the video-recorded interview with the defendant conducted on 7 October 2010, he said that when he handled a found property report himself, he would register the items picked by the finder – the finder would place the items he/she had picked up at the defendant’s place and then the defendant would check all the property and have them registered on his notebook: paragraphs 113 to 132 of Exhibit P4D. After the defendant had registered every single item, he would count and receive the items for the finder again to see if they were correct: paragraphs 125 to 128 of Exhibit P4D. He said when a member of the public came to make a found property report, he would count the property clearly in front of the finder first. After counting the property clearly, he would make his own entry onto his notebook. After counting and receiving the property, he would then write them onto his notebook and sign: paragraphs 322 to 329 of Exhibit P4D.

(c) The defendant’s account of counting the money held by PW3 only after he had finished making his notebook record is inconsistent with his alleged usual practice of having the finder place the found items on the defendant’s desk so that the defendant could check the items and have them registered on his notebook.

(d) In this connection, I note the defendant’s explanation that he believed PW3. However, I do not see any basis that the defendant believed PW3 more than other finders who took the trouble to go to the Police Station and hand in the property they found on the street hoping that the owners could get back their property.

(e) Indeed, PW3 was just holding the money in her hand. It would not have caused any inconvenience or delayed the process for the defendant to ask PW3 to hand in the money first so that he could register it on his notebook. Comparing to cases where the contents of the wallets had to be taken out for the defendant’s registration, it would definitely have been much easier in PW3’s scenario where what she had to do was just to give the money to the defendant. Further, if the defendant had asked PW3 to produce her identity card and then recorded the information on his notebook: paragraphs 152 and 190 of Exhibit P2D, there is no justifiable basis that he did not ask PW3 to hand in the money at the same time. Apart from my finding that the defendant’s account of counting the money held by PW3 only after he had finished making his notebook record is inconsistent with his alleged usual practice (of having the finder place the found items on the defendant’s desk so that the defendant could check the items and have them registered on his notebook), I also find that in all practicalities, it defies common sense that the defendant did not count the money held by PW3 until he had finished making his notebook record.

(vi) In relation to Charge 15, the defendant’s allegation that PW3 had difficulty to understand how to initial at the left margin so much so that he himself had to make an initial “杜(TO)” on line 2 of page 85 of Exhibit P10A (the same line as the figure “400” was deleted) to enable PW3 to follow suit at the left margin on line 3 of page 85 does not tally with the fact that PW3 had no difficulty at all to sign at the bottom of the notebook entry on page 85 of Exhibit P10A. In any event, if PW3 really did not understand what and where to initial, what the defendant needed to do was to tell her to pick one Chinese character from her name “杜綺雲 (TO Yee-wan)” and then point out the left margin on line 2 of page 85 of Exhibit P10A to PW3 so that PW3 could initial there. The defendant’s evidence that he had to make an initial “杜(TO)” on line 2 of page 85 of Exhibit P10A to enable PW3 to follow suit offends common sense and practicability.

In light of my aforesaid observations, I do not find the defendant a credible or reliable witness.

88.  I note that the defendant has received a number of commendations and awards as shown in Exhibits D1 to D4:

(i) According to Exhibit D4, in April 2008, the defendant handled a found property case involving USD80,000 worth of diamonds and foreign currencies and he caused immediate actions leading to successful tracing of the property owner to recover his property. However, Exhibit D4 does not contain full details of that case, e.g. whether the found property report was made by the finder to the defendant in the presence of other police officers, and whether the finder insisted to have a receipt, i.e. Pol 68D, which would list out details of the found property. Most importantly, it was stated in the second paragraph of Exhibit D4 that at the material time, the defendant was then the “Tai Lau” of MKDIST Report Room thus signifying that he had the computer to enter the details of the found property report into the computer system and use the computer to issue a Pol 68D. In the present case, the defendant was not a “Tai Lau” but a Report Room Receptionist who had no access to the computer. The facts of that case are different from those in the present case. In the circumstances, the commendation in Exhibit D4 does not affect my aforesaid assessment on the defendant’s credibility or reliability;

(ii) The commendation in Exhibit D1 was in appreciation of the defendant’s contributing to the 2008 Olympic and Paralympic Equestrian Events of the Games of the XXIX Olympiad, and the commendation in Exhibit D3 was a commendation of the defendant’s “exceptionally high level of teamwork, courage, tenacity and devotion to duty displayed during the preparation and execution phases of the World Trade Organisation Hong Kong Ministerial Conference operation between July and December 2005”. The backgrounds leading to these two commendations are different from the backgrounds in the present case. These two commendations do not affect my aforesaid assessment on the defendant’s credibility or reliability either;

(iii) Regarding Exhibit D2, there is no evidence to show on what strength the defendant was awarded as a winning police officer in the election of outstanding police officer;

(iv) In any event, the commendations and awards shown in Exhibits D1 to D4 do not directly relate to any of the present 13 charges. In particular, they do not show that:

(a) when the respective finders of the wallets in Charges 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 handed in the respective wallets to the defendant at the Police Station, no money was inside the wallets; or

(b)when PW28 and PW29 handed in the wallet in Charge 14 to the defendant at the Police Station, there was only $601 in the wallet; or

(c) when PW3 handed in the money to the defendant at the Police Station, she only handed in $200.

  In evaluating the defendant’s evidence, I have already taken into account the defendant’s good character as well as the commendations and awards he has received. Nonetheless, I maintain my view that the defendant is not a credible or reliable witness.

89. I note the defendant’s evidence that at the end of his shift, he would produce his notebook to the ADO who would read the defendant’s notebook and sign on the notebook. In this connection, I have the following observations:

(i) In relation to Charge 2, the defendant’s notebook entries for his shift on 26 August 2009 were from line 9 on page 1 to line 3 on page 3 of Exhibit P7A; but there is no legible record showing that the defendant’s notebook entries for that day were checked by anyone. In any event, at the entry marked with the time “2150”, it was recorded that PW2 went to the Police Station and signed to acknowledge receipt. Under the circumstances that there was a record saying the owner of the property had taken back the property, and that there was no further information in the notebook saying that the money handed in by PW5 was missing when PW2 collected his property, I find that even if the defendant’s notebook entries for his shift on 26 August 2009 were checked by his supervisor, an entry stating “checked by Sgt xxxx” is neither here nor there;

(ii) In relation to Charge 3, the defendant’s notebook entries for his shift on 22 December 2009 were from line 3 on page 14 to line 2 on page 18 of Exhibit P8A; but there is no record showing that those entries were checked by anyone;

(iii) In relation to Charge 4, the defendant’s notebook entries for his shift on 2 April 2010 were from line 9 on page 4 to line 4 on page 10 of Exhibit P9A; but there is no legible record showing that those entries were checked by anyone;

(iv) In relation to Charge 5, there is an entry with the time marked “2105” in line 13 on page 94 saying “checked by SGT1167”. It is not apparent from that entry what exactly was checked by Sgt 1167 and how in-depth Sgt 1167 checked the defendant’s notebook. In this connection, I note that the defendant failed to make an entry that he passed the property handed in by PW13 to WPC9638 at about 7:51 pm on the same day for WPC9638’s handling. If Sgt 1167 had seriously read through the defendant’s notebook entries for 12 June 2010 in detail, he should have noticed that there was no mention of how the property handed in by PW13 to the defendant was disposed of, and asked the defendant to add an entry to cover that omission. I find that Sgt1167 did not seriously check the defendant’s notebook entries for 12 June 2010. I find the entry “checked by SGT1167” is neither here nor there;

(v) In relation to Charge 6, there is an entry marked with the time “1900” in line 3 on page 99 saying “checked by Sgt54128”. However, according to the defendant’s notebook, the found property was handed in by PW15 at 1550 hours and collected by PW18 at 1645 hours on the same day. At the entry marked with the time “1645”, it was recorded that PW18 “counted the above property properly, a record was made in the notebook and he signed to confirm.” Under the circumstances that there was a record saying the owner of the property had counted the above property properly and signed to confirm, and that there was no further information in the notebook saying that the money handed in by PW15 was missing when PW18 collected his property, I find that the entry “checked by Sgt54128” is neither here nor there;

(vi) In relation to Charge 7, there is an entry marked with the time “2100” saying “checked by Sgt4380” in line 5 on page 114 of Exhibit P9A. In this connection, the defendant’s notebook entries show that the found property was handed in by PW14 at 2045 hours and then the defendant handed it over to WPC6646 for handling at 2055 hours. Under the circumstances and since the notebook entries did not show that the money handed in by PW14 was not handed over to WPC6646, I find that the entry “checked by Sgt 4380” is neither here nor there. I say the same in relation to Charge 8 which took place on the same day as Charge 7. There was an entry marked with the time “1920” showing that the defendant had handed over the property found by PW26 to WPC6646 at 1920 hours;

(vii) In relation to Charge 10, the defendant’s notebook entries for his shift on 15 July 2010 were from line 13 on page 10 to line 2 on page 15 of Exhibit P10A; but there is no record showing that those entries were checked by anyone;

(viii) In relation to Charge 11, the defendant’s notebook entries for his shift on 18 July 2010 were from line 7 on page 15 to line 1 on page 20 of Exhibit P10A; but there is no record showing that those entries were checked by anyone;

(ix) In relation to Charge 12, there is an entry with the time marked “2100” in line 6 on page 34 of Exhibit P10A saying “checked by Sgt11529”. It is not apparent from that entry what exactly was checked by Sgt 11529 and how in-depth Sgt 11529 checked the defendant’s notebook. In this connection, I note that the defendant failed to make an entry as to how he had disposed of the wallet handed in by PW6 after he had received it from PW6 at 1550 hours. If Sgt 11529 had seriously read through the defendant’s notebook entries for 25 July 2010 in detail, he should have noticed that there was no mention of how the wallet was disposed of, and asked the defendant to add an entry to cover that omission. I find that Sgt11529 did not seriously check the defendant’s notebook entries for 25 July 2010. I find that the entry “checked by Sgt 11529” is neither here nor there;

(x) In relation to Charge 13, there is an entry marked with the time “1952” in line 13 on page 53 of Exhibit P10A saying “checked by WSGT55651”. However, according to the defendant’s notebook, the property handed in by PW24 was passed to PC10347 for handling at 1952 hours. Under the circumstances and since the notebook entries did not show that the money handed in by PW24 was not handed over to PC10347, I find that the entry “checked by WSGT55651” is neither here nor there;

(xi) In relation to Charge 14, the defendant’s notebook entries for his shift on 11 August 2010 were from line 9 on page 57 to line 9 on page 61 of Exhibit P10A; but there is no record showing that those entries were checked by anyone; and

(xii) In relation to Charge 15, the defendant’s notebook entries for his shift on 23 August 2010 were from line 1 on page 84 to line 5 on page 86 of Exhibit P10A; but there is no record showing that those entries were checked by anyone.

 In short, where there was no record that his notebook entries were checked by any officer, the defendant cannot rely on the argument that his notebook entries were checked by the ADO. Where there were records that his notebook entries were checked by the relevant sergeants, I find that those entries are neither here nor there.

90. The defendant testified that at all material times, there was CCTV system installed to record activities at the Report Room all round the clock. No CCTV footage was produced. I do not need to speculate on the absence of any CCTV evidence.

91.  Having carefully considered the defendant’s evidence and in light of my observations as aforesaid, I maintain my view that the defendant is not credible or reliable. I refuse to accept the defendant’s evidence.

The prosecution’s evidence

92.  Although I have refused to accept the defendant’s evidence, the prosecution still has the burden to prove beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements in each of the 13 charges laid against the defendant. In this connection, I bear in mind that each of the 13 charges against the defendant has to be considered and dealt with separately.

93.  Regarding PW1, I find him an honest and reliable witness and his evidence credible and reliable. I accept PW1’s evidence. I accept that under normal circumstances where either of the officer in charge of the Loss Counter, the “Tai Lau” and the ADO was available, the Report Room Receptionist should direct the property finder to go to the Loss Counter, “Tai Lau’ or the ADO to make a found property report so that details of the found property could be entered into the police computer system, i.e. CIS, and a Pol 68D could be issued to the finder. I accept that it was a deviation from the Police General Order and the general work flow if the Report Room Receptionist handled the found property report himself without entering details of the found property into the police computer system and issuing a Pol 68D to the finder. Nonetheless, I am of the view that such deviation per se does not necessarily infer dishonesty.      

94.  (i)      Regarding PW2, it was not in dispute that when he went to collect his wallet from the Police Station, his $500 was missing. I note that at one stage, PW2 testified that the defendant’s notebook, i.e. Exhibit P7A, had not been shown to him when he collected his wallet from the Police Station on 26 August 2009. When his signature in Exhibit P7A was shown to him, PW2 admitted that the signature on the top of page 3 of Exhibit P7A was his signature. PW2 explained that he had signed on something but he did not remember whether he signed on a piece of paper or on a notebook. He also testified that he had signed without reading the contents of the relevant entry. I accept PW2’s explanation. After all, he admitted having signed on the defendant’s notebook. I do not think PW2’s earlier testimony that the defendant’s notebook had not been shown to him is material discrepancy affecting his credibility or reliability.

(ii) I also note that whilst PW5 testified that the wallet contained a HK$500 banknote and some HK$20 banknotes, PW2 testified that $500 was missing in his wallet. I do not consider this discrepancy material. In this connection, I am of the view that it is perfectly understandable that PW2 would not be able to tell exactly how much money his wallet contained before he lost his wallet. Indeed, in everyday life, we do not expect wallet owners be able to tell exactly how much money they have in their wallets at any given time.

(iii) Having carefully considered PW2’s evidence as a whole, I find PW2 honest and reliable. I accept PW2’s evidence.

95.  Cross-examination on PW3 did not reveal anything which rendered PW3’s evidence incredible or unreliable. Having carefully considered PW3’s evidence as a whole, I find PW3’s evidence credible and reliable. I accept PW3’s evidence, including her evidence that she passed four pieces of $100 banknotes to the defendant at the material time and she did not initial on the left margin on page 85 of Exhibit P10A.

96.  Cross-examination on PW5 did not reveal anything which rendered PW5’s evidence incredible or unreliable. In this connection, PW5 testified that the wallet contained some cash consisting of a HK$500 banknote and some HK$20 banknotes; but PW5 signed at the defendant’s notebook in which it did not mention that the wallet contained any cash. PW5 explained that he had hesitated to sign on the notebook but after second thought, he did not say anything to the police officer. I accept PW5’s explanation. As an ordinary citizen who did not know how detailed a police notebook entry should be, PW5’s response, i.e. signing on the notebook without questioning the defendant why the defendant omitted to mention cash in the wallet, is understandable. Having carefully considered PW5’s evidence as a whole, I find PW5 a credible and reliable witness. I accept PW5’s evidence.

97.  Cross-examination on PW6 did not reveal anything which rendered PW6’s evidence incredible or unreliable. She was adamant that there was about HK$180 in the wallet. I note that PW7, the wallet owner, testified that there was about $150 cash in her wallet; but I do not consider this minor discrepancy between PW6 and PW7’s evidence in this respect material. Having carefully considered PW6’s evidence as a whole, I find PW6 honest and reliable. I accept PW6’s evidence.

98.  Cross-examination on PW7 did not reveal anything which rendered PW7’s evidence incredible or unreliable. In examination-in-chief, PW7 testified that she had lost about $150 cash. PW7 testified that she was sure there were a $100 banknote, some $20 banknote and some coins in her wallet before she lost it. In cross-examination, she admitted that she had not made any report to the police of the loss of her wallet because her wallet contained no valuable property; but she disagreed that it was possible that there was no $100 banknote in her wallet. As a girl who could afford to go sing karaoke and have a trip to Taiwan, PW7’s evidence that her wallet contained no valuable property is not inconsistent with her evidence that there was about $150 in her wallet before she lost it. After all, $150 is not a significant amount of money in nowadays’ Hong Kong standard. I also note that PW6 testified that there was about $180 cash in the wallet when she found it; but I do not consider this minor discrepancy between PW6 and PW7’s evidence in this respect material. Having carefully considered PW7’s evidence as a whole, I find PW7 credible and reliable. I accept PW7’s evidence.

99.  Cross-examination on PW8 did not reveal anything which rendered PW8’s evidence incredible or unreliable. Having carefully considered PW8’s evidence as a whole, I find PW8 honest and reliable. I accept PW8’s evidence. I say the same in relation to PW10, PW15, PW19 and PW20. I find PW10, PW15, PW19 and PW20 honest and reliable and I accept their evidence.

100.  Cross-examination on PW9 did not reveal anything which rendered PW9’s evidence incredible or unreliable. In this connection, I note that PW8 testified that PW9’s wallet contained some $100, $20 and $10 banknotes whilst PW9 testified that when he left his wallet behind in the taxi, there was $3000 consisting of four $500 banknotes and ten $100 banknotes in his wallet. I do not find this discrepancy material. After all, PW9 lost his wallet before 10 am on 22 December 2009 whereas PW8 picked up that wallet at about 11:24 am that day. PW9’s wallet and its contents might have been tampered with by others before PW8 picked up the wallet. Having carefully considered PW9’s evidence, I find PW9 honest and credible. I accept PW9’s evidence.  

101.  I accept PW11’s explanation as to why she signed on the defendant’s notebook although there was no mention of money in the relevant notebook entry – PW11 testified that she did not know the procedure and how the police officer handled the matter, and that she simply signed on the notebook when the officer told her to sign. As an ordinary citizen who did not know how detailed a police notebook entry should be, PW11’s signing on the notebook without questioning the defendant why the defendant omitted to mention cash in the wallet, is understandable. PW11 was adamant that there was money in the wallet. Having carefully considered PW11’s evidence as a whole, I find PW11 a credible and reliable witness. I accept PW11’s evidence.

102.  There were no cross-examinations on PW12, PW16, PW17, PW18, PW21 and PW23. Having carefully considered their evidence individually, I find all of them credible and reliable. I accept their evidence.

103.  The notebook entry in relation to Charge 5 (from line 5 on page 91 to line 9 on page 92 of Exhibit P9A) contained no reference of money. Whilst PW13 testified that the officer had read out to her what was purportedly written in his notebook, and that the officer had read out to her the items she had picked up, including the $600, PW13 also testified that she did not know whether what the officer had read out to her was the same as what he had written on his notebook. PW13 explained that she did not read what the officer had written because the characters he wrote were quite illegible. She nevertheless signed on the notebook and left the Police Station. I accept PW13’s explanation. Having carefully considered PW13’s evidence as a whole, I find PW13 credible and reliable. I accept PW13’s evidence.

104.  PW14 was cross-examined on why she did not say something to the police officer when the notebook entry was read out to her but there was no mention of money. PW14 answered that it was because it was the first time she had gone to make a report at a police station and she did not know details of the found property had to be stated in the notebook. I accept PW14’s explanation. Having carefully considered PW14’s evidence as a whole, I find PW14 honest and reliable. I accept PW14’s evidence.

105.  During cross-examination on PW22, Mr Loftus suggested to her that there was no money in the wallet when she handed over the wallet to the officer. PW22 agreed. Despite PW22 testified in re-examination that there was money inside the wallet when she handed the wallet to the officer, I do not wish to rely on her evidence which was inconsistent in a material particular. I refuse to accept PW22’s evidence.

106. (i)  Cross-examination on PW24 did not reveal anything which rendered PW24’s evidence incredible or unreliable. There was no cross-examination on PW25.

(ii) PW24 testified that when he picked up PW25’s wallet, it contained inter alia $120 cash. On the other hand, PW25 testified that there was $500 in his wallet before he lost it. I do not find the discrepancy material. It is perfectly understandable that PW25 was not able to tell exactly how much money his wallet contained before he lost his wallet. After all, the wallet was picked up by PW24 on the street. PW25’s wallet and its contents might have been tampered with by others before PW24 picked up the wallet.

(iii) Having carefully considered PW24 and PW25’s evidence, I find them honest and credible. I accept PW24 and PW25’s evidence.

107.  (i)      Cross-examination on PW26 did not reveal anything which rendered PW26’s evidence incredible or unreliable. PW26’s evidence-in-chief that he saw the edge of the brown colour banknote was not challenged in cross-examination. It was never suggested to PW26 that the “brown colour banknote” was not a banknote. Throughout PW26’s evidence, he said it was a banknote, although he did not know the denomination of that banknote.

(ii) Whilst PW26 testified that he saw the edge of a brown colour banknote in the wallet, it was stated by the wallet owner in Exhibit P25 that the wallet contained one $500 banknote, a few $100 banknotes and a few $20 banknotes totaling about $1,000. I do not consider this discrepancy material. After all, PW26 never opened the wallet or checked the contents therein.

(iii) Having carefully considered PW26’s evidence as a whole, I find PW26 credible and reliable. I accept PW26’s evidence. In particular, I find that PW26 did see a banknote in the wallet.

108.  (i) Cross-examination on PW27 did not reveal anything which rendered PW27’s evidence incredible or unreliable. In this connection, I note PW27’s evidence that when he collected his wallet from the Police Station, his wallet was not wet. On the other hand, PW28 testified that the wallet was wet when she found it on the footbridge. Given the fact that the wallet was handed over to the defendant by PW28 and PW29 at 11:50 am and was collected by PW27 at 1:05 pm on the same day, and that when PW27 collected his wallet, the items inside the wallet had been taken out and contained in a transparent plastic bag, I find that between 11:50 am and 1:05 pm, steps must have been taken to dry out the wallet and its contents. I do not find PW27 and PW28’s evidence regarding the state of the wallet, i.e. whether it was wet or not, material to affect their respective credibility or reliability.

(ii) PW27 testified that cash of about $4,000 was missing from his wallet when he collected it at the Police Station. On the other hand, PW28 testified that there were three or four $100 banknotes and one $500 banknote in PW27’s wallet whereas PW29 testified that there were several $100 banknotes and two $500 banknotes (one in the inner compartment of PW27’s wallet). I do not consider this discrepancy material. After all, the wallet was picked up by PW28 and PW29 on the footbridge. PW27’s wallet and its contents might have been tampered with by others before PW28 and PW29 picked up the wallet.

(iii) Having carefully considered PW27’s evidence as a whole and compared PW27’s evidence with the evidence of PW28 and PW29, I find PW27 credible and reliable. I accept PW27’s evidence.

109.  Cross-examination of PW28 did not reveal anything which rendered PW28’s evidence incredible or unreliable. In this connection, I note PW28 testified that she saw three or four $100 banknotes and one $500 banknote in the wallet whilst PW29 testified that there were several $100 banknotes and two $500 banknotes (one of the $500 banknote was placed at the inner compartment of the wallet) in the wallet. Indeed, PW27 testified that he had put one $500 in an inner compartment. PW28 said there was one $500 banknote but she did not mention the inner compartment of the wallet. I find that PW28 only mentioned one $500 banknote because she did not notice the $500 banknote placed in the inner compartment of the wallet. As such, PW28’s evidence is not inconsistent with PW29’s evidence regarding the number of $500 banknotes in the wallet. Having carefully considered PW28’s evidence as a whole and compared her evidence with PW29’s evidence regarding the number of $500 banknotes in the wallet, I find PW28 credible and reliable. I accept PW28’s evidence.

110.  Cross-examination on PW29 did not reveal anything which rendered PW29’s evidence incredible or unreliable. Having carefully considered PW29’s evidence as a whole and compared her evidence with PW28’s evidence regarding the number of $500 banknotes in the wallet, I find PW29 credible and reliable. I accept PW29’s evidence.

111.  The statements made by the defendant in his video-recorded interviews contained in Exhibits P2A, P3A, P4A and P5A (and P2B, P2C, P2D, P3B, P3C, P3D, P4B, P4C, P4D, P5B, P5C and P5D) are mixed statements. In light of my aforesaid observations on the defendant’s evidence, i.e. the inconsistencies between his testimony and his statements made in the video-recorded interviews, I attach no weight to the exculpatory statements made in the video-recorded interviews and I give full weight to the inculpatory statements made in the video-recorded interviews.

112.  The relevant notebook entries were referred to in the video-recorded interviews. In light of my aforesaid observations on the defendant’s evidence and his video-recorded interviews, I attach no weight to the exculpatory statements made in the relevant notebook entries and I give full weight to the inculpatory statements made in the relevant notebook entries.

113.  Exhibits P12 to P25 were admitted by virtue of section 65B of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221. The defence did not cross-examine any of the statement makers. I give full weight to each of those statements. In relation to Exhibits P19 to P24 in which there was no mention of money being handed over by the defendant to the officer in charge of the Loss Counter at the material time, I find that the defendant did not hand over any money to the relevant officer in charge of the Loss Counter at the material time. In relation to Exhibit P16, I find that the defendant only handed over two $100 banknotes to PC11023.

THE LAW

114.  According to section 2(1) of the Theft Ordinance, Cap.210, a person commits theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

115.  In determining whether the defendant was acting dishonestly, I bear in mind the principle laid down in R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053.

CONCLUSION

Charge 11

116.  As I have refused to rely on PW22’s evidence, there is insufficient evidence to prove that when PW22 handed in the wallet to the defendant, there was money in the wallet. As such, I acquit the defendant on Charge 11.

The remaining charges in general

117.  In relation to Charges 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14, I find that in the respective found property reports in his notebooks, the defendant deliberately and dishonestly omitted to record the existence of cash contained in the respective wallets and the amounts of cash because he dishonestly intended to appropriate the cash in each of the aforesaid charges. In this connection, I do not accept that the defendant was in such a hurry or so busy that he could not count the actual amount of money he had received from the finder and jot it down in his notebook. If there were just a few banknotes/coins in the wallet, it did not take long for the defendant to count the actual amount of money and jot it down in his notebook. If there were a large number of banknotes/coins in the wallet, there was all the more reason for the defendant to record in the notebook clearly and accurately how much money it was in the wallet. I say the above regardless of whether there is any Police General Order or regulations governing the procedures a police officer has to follow when handling a found property report.

118.  In relation to Charges 3 and 6, the respective found property reports in the defendant’s notebooks mentioned that money was contained in the wallets but the amounts of money were not specified. I find that the defendant deliberately and dishonestly omitted to specify the amounts of money found in the respective wallets so that at a later stage when he returned the wallets to the respective owners, i.e. PW9 and PW18, he could lie about the amount of money he had received from the respective finders. For the same reasons as I mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I do not accept that the defendant was in such a hurry or so busy that he could not count the actual amount of money he had received from the finder and jot it down in his notebook.   

119.  In relation to Charge 15, I find that the defendant deleted the figure “400” and replaced it with “200” on line 2 on page 85 of Exhibit P10A in the absence of PW3 because he dishonestly intended to appropriate $200 from the $400 handed over to him by PW3.

Charge 2

120.  I find that when PW5 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia a $500 banknote. About 20 minutes later, when PW2 came to collect his wallet from the defendant, he found his $500 was missing. I find that between the time when PW5 handed in the wallet containing inter alia $500 to the defendant and the time when PW2 collected his wallet from the defendant, the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that the $500 was missing when PW2 collected his wallet because the money was appropriated by the defendant, and that the defendant appropriated the $500 dishonestly. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 2. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 2.

Charge 3

121.  I find that when PW8 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia some $100, $20 and $10 banknotes. About 2 hours later when PW9 came to collect his wallet from the defendant, he found money was missing from his wallet. I find that between the time when PW8 handed in the wallet to the defendant and the time when PW9 collected his wallet from the defendant, the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that the money was missing from the wallet when PW9 collected his wallet because the money was appropriated by the defendant, and that the defendant appropriated the money dishonestly. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 3. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 3.

Charge 4

122.  I find that when PW11 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia a sum of money of $100 odd. About 40 minutes later, when PW10 came to collect his wallet from the defendant, he found his money was missing from his wallet. I find that between the time when PW11 handed in the wallet containing inter alia $100 odd to the defendant and the time when PW10 collected his wallet from the defendant, the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that the $100 odd was missing when PW10 collected his wallet because the money was appropriated by the defendant, and that the defendant appropriated the $100 odd dishonestly. I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubts that the defendant, on 2 April 2010, at the Police Station, stole cash of about $100, the property belonging to PW10. To the extent that the defendant stole cash of about $100 belonging to PW10, I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved all the requisite elements required in Charge 4. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 4 to the extent that the defendant stole cash of about $100 belonging to PW10.

Charge 5

123.  I find that when PW13 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia $600. About 16 minutes later, when the defendant handed over the relevant wallet to WPC9638, there was already no money in that wallet. I find that between the time when PW11 handed in the wallet containing inter alia $600 to the defendant (at 19:35 hours) and the time when the defendant handed over the wallet to WPC9638 (at 19:51 hours), the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that the $600 was missing when the defendant handed the wallet to WPC9638 because the money was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 5. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 5.

Charge 6

124.  I find that when PW15 handed in the card-holder to the defendant, the card-holder contained inter alia cash of about $150. About 55 minutes later, when PW18 came to collect his card-holder from the defendant, he found his money was missing from his card-holder. I find that between the time when PW15 handed in the card-holder containing inter alia cash of about $150 to the defendant and the time when PW18 collected his card-holder from the defendant, the card-holder was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that cash of about $150 was missing when PW18 collected his card-holder because the money was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 6. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 6.

Charge 7

125.  I find that when PW14 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia $60. About 10 minutes later, when the defendant handed over the relevant wallet to WPC6646, there was already no money in that wallet. I find that between the time when PW14 handed in the wallet containing inter alia $60 to the defendant (at 20:45 hours) and the time when the defendant handed over the wallet to WPC6646 (at 20:55 hours), the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that the $60 was missing when the defendant handed the wallet to WPC6646 because the money was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 7. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 7.

Charge 8

126.  I find that at 17:15 hours when PW26 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia a brown colour banknote. About 2 hours and 5 minutes later at 19:20 hours, when the defendant handed over the relevant wallet to WPC6646, there was already no money in that wallet. I find that between the time when PW26 handed in the wallet containing a brown colour banknote to the defendant and the time when the defendant handed over the wallet to WPC6646, the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that the money in the wallet was missing when the defendant handed the wallet to WPC6646 because the money was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 8. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 8.

Charge 10

127.  I find that at 14:15 hours when PW20 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia two or three pieces of $10 or $20 banknotes with a total amount of less than $60. About 1 hour and 18 minutes later at 15:33 hours, when the defendant handed over the relevant wallet to PC9312, there was already no money in that wallet. I find that between the time when PW20 handed in the wallet containing two or three pieces of $10 or $20 banknotes with a total amount of less than $60 to the defendant and the time when the defendant handed over the wallet to PC9312, the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that the money in the wallet was missing when the defendant handed the wallet to PC9312 because the money was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubts that the defendant, on 15 July 2010, at the Police Station, stole cash of about $60, the property belonging to PW21. To the extent that the defendant stole cash of about $60 belonging to PW21, I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved all the requisite elements required in Charge 10. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 10 to the extent that the defendant stole cash of about $60 belonging to PW21.

Charge 12

128.  I find that when PW6 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia cash of about $180. I find, as testified by PW6, the defendant did check the contents of the wallet by spreading the contents onto his desk and see that there was cash of about $180. I find that in the found property report in his notebook, the defendant deliberately omitted to record the existence of cash contained in the wallet and the amount of cash because he dishonestly intended to appropriate the cash in Charge 12. The owner of the wallet, PW7, testified that since she had lost her wallet at the material time, no one had ever informed her to collect her wallet from the Police Station and she had never got back her wallet. In the defendant’s notebook, there is no entry recording how he disposed of the wallet after his receipt of the same from PW6. I draw the only irresistible inference that cash of about $180 contained in the wallet handed over to the defendant by PW6 was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 12. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 12, i.e. theft of $150.

Charge 13

129.  I find that at 19:25 hours when PW24 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia $120 cash. About 27 minutes later at 19:52 hours, when the defendant handed over the relevant wallet to PC10347, there was already no money in that wallet. I find that between the time when PW24 handed in the wallet containing $120 cash to the defendant and the time when the defendant handed over the wallet to PC10347, the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that the money in the wallet was missing when the defendant handed the wallet to PC10347 because the money was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 13. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 13.

Charge 14

130.  I find that at 11:50 hours when PW28 and PW29 handed in the wallet to the defendant, the wallet contained inter alia several $100 banknotes and two $500 banknotes. About 1 hour and 15 minutes later, when PW27 came to collect his wallet from the defendant, he found that save for $601, the rest of his money originally in his wallet was missing. I find that between the time when PW28 and PW29 handed in the wallet containing inter alia several $100 banknotes and two $500 banknotes to the defendant and the time when PW27 collected his wallet from the defendant, the wallet was kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that some cash of Hong Kong currency was missing when PW27 collected his wallet because the money was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 14. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 14.

Charge 15

131.  I find that at 12:15 hours on 23 August 2010, PW3 handed in four pieces of $100 banknotes to the defendant. About 2 hours and 29 minutes later at 14:44 hours on the same day, the defendant only handed over $200 to PC11023. I find that between the time when PW3 handed in the four pieces of $100 banknotes to the defendant and the time when the defendant handed over $200 to PC11023, the four pieces of $100 were kept in the defendant’s possession. I draw the only irresistible inference that $200 was not handed over to PC11023 because the $200 was dishonestly appropriated by the defendant. I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts all the requisite elements required in Charge 15. I find the defendant guilty of Charge 15.