HKSAR v. LAU PAK SZE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

MAGISTRACY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 168/98

____________

____________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

1. On the 26th January of this year, the Appellant was convicted after trial of the theft of a mobile-telephone. He was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. He now appeals against conviction.

2. The Appellant who was represented at trial but appears today unrepresented has argued several grounds.

3. First, he has argued that the officer who arrested him was not called to give evidence at the trial. It appears from the transcript and the statement of findings that two police officers gave evidence at trial. There was never any suggestion at trial that the arresting officer was not one of the two. Indeed, the evidence was that the Appellant was arrested and cautioned by one of the two officers and, in answer to the caution, asked to be given a chance I find nothing in the first ground of appeal.

4. Second, the Appellant has argued that he was only arrested outside the Jockey Club premises in which he was alleged to have stolen the mobile-telephone and not at the scene itself. In this regard, it was the evidence of the two police officers, whom the Magistrate found to be reliable and accurate in their testimony, that, after he had removed the mobile-telephone from a rucksack, the Appellant realised he had been spotted and, in order to make good his escape, dropped the mobile-telephone and ran for the exit. In such circumstances, it is not surprising that he was not arrested at the scene but a short distance away.

5. Third, in general terms, the Appellant had submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was inconsistent in material respects, rendering his conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory. The Magistrate, however, in a detailed statement of Findings, dealt with a number of the alleged inconsistencies and considered their weight. This was essentially a trial based on factual issues. The Magistrate analysed the evidence with care, applying the correct test as to the burden of proof . I can find nothing to suggest that the conviction was unsafe or unsatisfactory.

6. The appeal is dismissed.