HKSAR v. CHAN MAN PING

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1998, No. 286
(Criminal)

-------------------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

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

1. The Applicant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction for handling stolen goods.

2. The stolen goods in question were a necklace which had been taken from the victim of a lift robbery which occurred at about 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon of 21st January 1998.

3. The victim entered a lift in the Chai Wan Estate together with a man and a woman. When the lift reached the 11/F she left the lift and was set upon by the man who grabbed her necklace and ran away. She went down the stairway to see if she could find her assailants and saw the woman, who was D2 in the proceedings, on the second floor. She grabbed hold of her and created a commotion. This was seen by police officer who was nearby who came to her assistance.

4. Shortly after this the Applicant and D1 in the proceedings below were apprehended and arrested. Enquiries of a pawn broker in the vicinity revealed that the Applicant had pledged a necklace which was subsequently identified by the victim as being hers at the pawn shop.

5. D1 who pleaded guilty at the trial below gave evidence on behalf of the Applicant. His evidence was to the effect that the Applicant did not know the necklace had been stolen. This evidence was rejected by the Judge.

6. For the reasons he gave the Judge was satisfied at the appropriate level that the Applicant was well aware that the necklace was stolen property.

7. The 1st ground of appeal complains that the Judge had been aware of the Applicant's previous criminal record. This was correct. The way it came about was that at an early stage in the prosecution case the prosecution applied under s.29(3) of the Theft Ordinance to adduce evidence of the Applicant's previous conviction within the last twelve months of theft. The application proved to be unsuccessful as the prosecution mislaid some of the original documents necessary to support the application.

8. Notwithstanding this the Judge made it very clear in his Reasons for Verdict that he had not allowed this in any way to influence him.

9. The other complaints made in the Applicant's application are entirely without substance. The Applicant speculates upon why D1 at the trial below was handcuffed at the time of arrest and he wasn't. He also speculates upon why the statement he made at the police station was not adduced as evidence.

10. There is no merit whatever in these grounds and the application is dismissed.