THE QUEEN v. CHAN WAI FAI

_________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Penlington, J.A. delivered the judgment of the Court:

1. The applicant in this case Chan Wai Fai seeks leave to appeal against convictions on 3 counts of burglary, one of robbery and one of theft. He pleaded not guilty in the District Court before Her Honour Deputy Judge Toh. He was convicted of those offences after trial but acquitted on one other charge of burglary.

2. The charges arose from an incident on the 21st December 1987 when a Mr. Ng Fong,This involved  a hawker, awoke at 4 p.m. in his home at 339 Lower Ngau Tau Kok Estate to find a Person who he later identified as the applicant ransacking the flat. On being challenged the applicant fled but was caught by Mr. Ng. He then said he was looking for a Ah Keung at flat 306 but on being taken to that flat the occupant denied knowing him. The applicant was then arrested by two police officers who were in the vicinity and subsequently he made statements admitting entering flat 339 with intent to steal and also the other offences. These statements were admitted in evidence after challenge.

3. Before us he said that he was in fact beaten into making these statements but he did not give evidence to support that allegation before the District Court in the voir dire.

4. The statements contained admissions of burglary on the 4th November when some $900 were taken from a private flat in the same estate (Charge 1), taking $70 from a similar flat on the 20th November (Charge 3)and of finding and pawning a watch on the 30th November (Charge 6).

5. However the most serious charge is charge 5, robbery on the 21st December of an elderly woman aged 86, also at Lower Ngau Tau Kok. This involved some shall degree of violence and a sum of $1,500 was taken. Again the applicant made a statement admitting this offence. When arrested the applicant had some $918 in cash on him plus a ring which he said he had bought for $639.

6. In the absence of any evidence from the applicant as to the alleged ill treatment we see nothing here to suggest that the trial judge was not entitled to find that the statements were voluntary and to put such weight on them as she thought fit.

7. It is true that apart from Mr. Ng's evidence in relation to Charge 4 the only evidence against the applicant was his own statement. The applicant did not give evidence on the general issue and we see no reason to doubt the correctness of the trial Judge's finding that she could put such weight on those statements as to satisfy her of the applicant's guilt beyond doubt

8. We see no reason to interfere with the trial judges findings.

9. The application o leave to appeal against the convictions is reused.