HKSAR v. TSE TING CHEONG

HCMA698/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2007

(ON APPEAL FROM STCC 3316 OF 2007)

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. The appellant was convicted of the offence of common assault by Mr Casewell sitting in Shatin Court.  The allegation was that he had used a pellet gun to shoot the victim at the victim’s factory.  The victim said it was the appellant who shot him.  The appellant elected not to give evidence.  The case depended entirely on the identification evidence of the appellant by the victim.  The victim had met the appellant on at least two previous occasions and they had been involved in a negotiation of the production of some wheels or gears.  Because they were known to each other, the learned magistrate quite rightly found that the identification was based on recognition and he found that he could rely on that identification by the victim of the appellant.  The appellant now appeals against his conviction.

2. The appellant, acting in person, did not really advance any substantive grounds of appeal save to criticise the victim’s evidence given at the trial.  He also relied on certain alleged discrepancies in the victim’s evidence.  These matters were all gone into in some detail during the trial when the appellant was represented by counsel.  The magistrate did consider all these matters before he arrived at his verdict. 

3. Mr Wong for the respondent submits that the sole issue before the magistrate was : did the victim make a wrong identification.  Mr Wong submits that the victim knew the appellant because they had gone to China together to purchase materials and he submits this was not a case of wrong identification. 

4. I agree with that submission and with the magistrate’s finding that this identification based upon recognition was one which the court could properly rely upon.  There are no other matters in this appeal which could give any concern to the safety of the conviction.  The appeal is dismissed.